Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Eschar]

Oh, btw. I feel like we're overly picking on Trolldefender here: they actually did read up when we noted them of places to learn more.

Aye.

[Naturegirl1999]

Apparently trump tried to blackmail/stranglehold (correct term? Threatening with punishment...) the ukraine president to investigate Biden (or his son...both?). Never has a US president been so brazen with corruption, except maybe nixon but I wasn't around in his time. Trump knows biden would beat him and is now using dirty nasty tactics to do anything possible to undermine his potential candidacy. A severe abuse of power. Sadly it takes both congress and senate to impeach, and its not likely senate is gonna do that being trump controlled.

This is bad

[Doomblade187]

Apparently trump tried to blackmail/stranglehold (correct term? Threatening with punishment...) the ukraine president to investigate Biden (or his son...both?). Never has a US president been so brazen with corruption, except maybe nixon but I wasn't around in his time. Trump knows biden would beat him and is now using dirty nasty tactics to do anything possible to undermine his potential candidacy. A severe abuse of power. Sadly it takes both congress and senate to impeach, and its not likely senate is gonna do that being trump controlled.

This is bad

Yep
Edit:

Oh Boy.

Rudy Guliani: "We’re not meddling in an election; we’re meddling in an investigation, which we have a right to do,"

[Trolldefender99]

Oh, btw. I feel like we're overly picking on Trolldefender here: they actually did read up when we noted them of places to learn more.

Its fair, I did spout off things without knowing more actually about it. But I am still reading both links since its a lot to take in and I re-read parts a lot so I can memorize/remember it easily. A lot of the things is definitely not what I thought of originally. Which in a way is like (for me) walking into a brickwall and its a bit hard to take in since I strongly believed things that were actually wrong.

I'm still a big supporter of Biden though personally, him and I like Kamala quite a bit though doesn't seem she is fairing that great in polls. The guy that wants to bribe people I tbh wouldn't vote for cause I don't like being bribed for anything, I just like the idea of free 1000 a month Besides that. I know a lot here don't seem to be enthusiastic about biden and don't see much about kamala here, but everyone has their favored candidate and hopefully end up more united in the end.

[Trolldefender99]

Apparently trump tried to blackmail/stranglehold (correct term? Threatening with punishment...) the ukraine president to investigate Biden (or his son...both?). Never has a US president been so brazen with corruption, except maybe nixon but I wasn't around in his time. Trump knows biden would beat him and is now using dirty nasty tactics to do anything possible to undermine his potential candidacy. A severe abuse of power. Sadly it takes both congress and senate to impeach, and its not likely senate is gonna do that being trump controlled.

This is bad

Yep
Edit:

Oh Boy.

Rudy Guliani: "We’re not meddling in an election; we’re meddling in an investigation, which we have a right to do,"

Well there is corrupt lawyer speak if I ever heard (read). its actual pre-election interference. Hopefully this isn't forgotten about in a week or two like most things involving trump.

(post edit)

Though guess should we even be surprised? first trump uses russia and now he is trying to use ukraine. Sadly its no surprise he is using other countries to sabatoge candidates he is afraid of when he has done it before (russia with hillary)

[Iduno]

"Compromise" is not a dirty word. If a policy that does 80%, or even 60% of what you want it to do can get passed, it is better than a 90% or 100% policy that has no chance. It is even worse when you're in a situation where you'd be able to get 70% or 80% if you hadn't been screaming "GIVE ME 100% OR GO TO HELL!", which is far from an uncommon situation. Deciding that "well, Candidate A isn't everything I want a candidate to be, but Candidate B who I like better will probably lose, so I'll support A" is basic logic - you won't get anywhere if you don't make the best effort to make some forward progress.

I can't remember a compromise bill that did 10% of what it was sold as doing. The insurance bill that makes it easier for insurance companies to drop people or refuse services, and also makes health insurance compulsory?

If the solution to your complaint that people are too ideaologically pure is giving in 100% (pure, but for whatever the other side wants) so you can "win", you have insane priorities. It's more likely that you're confusing "don't give them 100%" with "give me 100%."

[Kagus]

first trump uses russia and now he is trying to use ukraine.

It's all the same to Putin, why should Trump know the difference?

[Lord Shonus]

I can't remember a compromise bill that did 10% of what it was sold as doing. The insurance bill that makes it easier for insurance companies to drop people or refuse services, and also makes health insurance compulsory?

The insurance bill that you seem to be referring to made it harder to drop people, and illegal to refuse service for most of the reasons previously used. The "make it mandatory" part was intended to bring the prices down - which it DID until opponents started gutting it.

Some people lost healthcare, or had prices go up, when the Affordable Care Act went into effect. These were, almost universally, people who had "We'll take your money every month, but if you try to use it for anything much more significant than a routine physical or maybe a broken bone or two, we will deny the claim and find some excuse to drop you" plans without realizing it. The most public failure of the law -the online marketplace that was completely inadequate to handle the volume of use- was caused by it being a runaway success.

The ACA did at least 80% what it promised outside of states that did everything in their power to kill it, which is the reason why Trump's efforts to repeal it have all failed. The current popularity of far more ambitious healthcare plans is not "The ACA didn't do what it promised", but rather "The effects of the ACA prove that what the ACA promised was not enough, so we need to go bigger.".

[smjjames]

The guy that wants to bribe people I tbh wouldn't vote for cause I don't like being bribed for anything, I just like the idea of free 1000 a month

You mean you don't like the idea of free 1000 a month? That sentence is slightly self contradictory there. Still, it's kind of odd to pull what he's doing and call it a 'pilot program' because such trials usually involve way more people than 10 and take place over years if you want to do a serious study or trial on it. Not to mention using it as an election stunt.

Besides that. I know a lot here don't seem to be enthusiastic about biden and don't see much about kamala here, but everyone has their favored candidate and hopefully end up more united in the end.

Being from California, I might go and vote Kamala Harris (because Go California! If anything) if I'm unable to tactically vote for one of Trumps challengers.

To me, Biden seems like the best just for the Trump fear factor, though that is a double edged sword because he'll get attacked for a longer period compared to others.

[MrRoboto75]

I don't have much confidence in Biden really.

Really the only thing going for him is that he was buddies with Obama.

[SalmonGod]

Trolldefender, you do deserve real credit for being willing to look things up when prompted, and realize that you were misinformed.  I didn't mean that last post I made that referenced you to be a dig at you.  It was just convenient that what you had come in and said before was an example of what MSH was referring to in regards to swing voters, imo.  It wasn't meant to be a statement about you.  Just election politics in general, because the stuff you were saying is really common conservative gospel regarding socialism/communism.  And I also apologize for the harsh reaction you received when you first came in here saying that stuff.  I can't remember if I was one of them, but I know you faced some harsh words over it.  The thing is, there are people like you who have simply been misinformed and don't realize it.  But there are also political trolls who know better, but intentionally sabotage the ability to have coherent political discourse and spread misinformation by abusing terminology.  Those types are way too common, and being on the internet too long can jade you so you react harshly towards anyone who looks like that type at a glance.

[Frumple]

I don't have much confidence in Biden really.

Really the only thing going for him is that he was buddies with Obama.

Eh, the policy planks he's running with generally aren't particularly horrible, for what that's worth. He's also running on the dem ticket, and probably wouldn't shirk congressional/base pressure much or at all, so, like... barring senility issues or something a biden presidency probably wouldn't be a complete disaster. Congress might be able to get some good stuff through, especially if filibuster nuking gets more support and gets done. Likely not sufficient on some fronts relative to their size and urgency, but it wouldn't be GOP. Barring some kind of republican shutdown of the house or senate, we'd be pretty sure to see gains on a fair number of fronts -- environment, civil spending, his stated position on a bunch of stuff is... okay. Not as good as the other two in play in many ways, but it's no trump and not a GOP policy drive (i.e. fuck all of us). Just a 70+ year old near literally dead center of the pack career democrat.

None of that's particularly unique to biden, though, and he shares problems with sanders on aisle reaching and whatnot, so... yeah. Also got the whole shambling geriatric corpse thing going on, now with eye explosion and detachable teeth action.He used to be a fairly sharp debater and pretty strong on some other related skillsets, iirc, but that was like... a decade ago or somethin'. Now, less so.

... I don't have much confidence in biden either, honestly. Or sanders. Or... most of the field, really. M'kinda' resigned to voting warren in the primary and then whatever isn't GOP in the general. She's got solid policy chops and could probably get a hell of a lot done if elected (likely more than either B-guy), but less sure how the election itself'll play out. Still going to be probably three or four cycles until the next generation or so starts taking over, sadly. It kinda' literally can't come fast enough considering how increasingly militant us younger folks are getting on the environmental issues we're already probably too late to stop

[smjjames]

The next generation (well, the millenials) is already starting to take over, but it probably will take three or four more cycles before they start hitting leadership positions. That’ll also be about the same time post-millennials start getting elected.

Also, trolldefender, to reiterate what salmongod said, yeah, my response to you, may have been a bit harsh, but I did recognize that you didn’t appear to be trying to use it to shut down discussion. It’s just that, as salmongod said, it gets misused so heavily that it becomes meaningless unless you’re maybe talking about history since the current definition of it is ‘thing that I don’t like and/or don’t want to have a productive and coherent conversation about’.

At this point I don't think that there's any real hope in stopping things before there are serious consequences. There's just making sure it doesn't reach levels of destruction of civilization. That, I think, is still definitely a goal that can be accomplished.

The first generation to fully rectify the continuing decline in climate conditions will not be the first to actually see benefits. That will come several later. In a sense, it's the same thing that stymied resolving climate change in the first place- just as earlier generations didn't care to face the problem because they wouldn't live to see the consequences, the generation that solves the problem won't live to see the improvements.

Hopefully that won't discourage them as much as it discouraged the earlier group.

At this point, we’d have an easier time trying to adapt than completely reversing global warming.

[Trolldefender99]

Speaking of global warming...

The amazon rainforest news seemed to die out after a couple weeks. So much destruction of the rainforest and forests/jungles etc around the world is definitely not helping fight global warming and in fact doing the opposite. I see no good coming out of destroying the biggest (or is it one of the biggest?) rainforests in the world. And the constant destruction of the land to make way for buildings and other constructions isn't helping to keep a stable earth. Humans are literally destroying their own planet.

[SalmonGod]

At this point, we’d have an easier time trying to adapt than completely reversing global warming.

Again, global warming is just one of several equally serious environmental issues that need to be faced.  We could solve global warming tomorrow.  Pollution and habitat destruction would still do us in.  We need to stop thinking of environmental disaster as synonymous with global warming.  Even if we could adapt to that one thing, we can't adapt to the cumulative effect of all of them.  We need some functional ecosystem to sustain us.