2020 US Election (Part Two)

Status
Not open for further replies.
Given @Gorbles said the kid went on to various talkshows etc, yes, he seems to be all in now. But I still don't feel like forgetting how old he is. I mean one might as well accuse Trump's son of being a ridiculous clown and kneejerk pro-Trump, but I view this as missing the point. Being angry at children isn't very productive - they didn't cause this mess and are arguably not autonomous either.
I don't mean to boast about myself at the tender age of 16 (in the slightest), but 16 is when people can start having jobs. It is when the state (in the UK) ceases a lot of enforced support, both from a parental angle and generally in terms of education. Being 16 is a child in hindsight, for sure. But 16 is not an age where teenagers are unaware, infinitely-malleable bright sparks of potential all humans (presumably) have had the ability to be.

Don't forget how old he is, sure. But it's not exactly an age where people aren't making choices knowing the consequences some of the time. And if he's that pushed by his family, or some other involved parental figure, then why even focus on him at all? Because that means it wasn't even him from near the start, barring a choice set of social media clips that kicked the whole mess off.

These things have to have balance. Caution about him being young all you want, and don't mistake me calling him out for using his age as a justification. Minors should have a bunch of protections (mainly anonymity), people shouldn't have to deal with death threats. But you're acting like 16 is the same as him being, like, 6. And yes, I'm aware that this isn't a fantastic slope to argue down :p
 
Last edited:
I kinda-missed this gem, but it's such a perfect encapsulation of "we need to not alienate people, except when I'm doing the alienating" that it's timeless :D

It was specific to this thread. <shrug>

Those instances happened a while ago.
 
It was specific to this thread. <shrug>

Those instances happened a while ago.
The upshot is still "it's fine when you do it", so stick to your guns, yeah?
 
It's not really fine, no. But not everything is salvageable. There is no point with liars.
 
It's not really fine, no. But not everything is salvageable. There is no point with liars.
This is the gift that keeps giving. Your justifications are excusable, I understand. I mean, it would've been useful to understand this earlier, but I live with what I can get.

I now return you to your regularly-scheduled news (evangelical right-wingers being hypocrites over sexual ethics, will wonders never cease), sorry folks for the slight tangent.
 
I don't mean to boast about myself at the tender age of 16 (in the slightest), but 16 is when people can start having jobs. It is when the state (in the UK) ceases a lot of enforced support, both from a parental angle and generally in terms of education. Being 16 is a child in hindsight, for sure. But 16 is not an age where teenagers are unaware, infinitely-malleable bright sparks of potential all humans (presumably) have had the ability to be.

Don't forget how old he is, sure. But it's not exactly an age where people aren't making choices knowing the consequences some of the time. And if he's that pushed by his family, or some other involved parental figure, then why even focus on him at all? Because that means it wasn't even him from near the start, barring a choice set of social media clips that kicked the whole mess off.

These things have to have balance. Caution about him being young all you want, and don't mistake me calling him out for using his age as a justification. Minors should have a bunch of protections (mainly anonymity), people shouldn't have to deal with death threats. But you're acting like 16 is the same as him being, like, 6. And yes, I'm aware that this isn't a fantastic slope to argue down :p

16 you started late. 13 for me buying my own clothes 15,dropped out of school aged 16.

There's a case going to court to give 16 year olds the vote here. Claims 18 is a beach of human rights.

I don't think it will succeed but you never know.
 
I like your improvised comedie/tragedie emojis :goodjob:

The folks in the Biden camp keep talking about how important it is to get a "mandate" ie decisive victory so that Trump can't refuse to leave office...

Yeah, that's not happening. :nope: Biden will do well to thank his lucky stars if he manages to squeak in by the skin of his teeth. The "result" that seems most likely to me at this point, is that election night, Trump is comfortably ahead, because the red states (and counties) will have much higher amounts of in-person voting going on. But there won't be enough electoral votes to declare Trump the winner.

Then, over the course of the week, as the mail-in votes start getting counted, Biden will catch up... and then all hell is gonna break lose... the recriminations, lawsuits, injunctions, the wails of vote rigging and voter fraud, "I told you so" and so on... its going to be a trainwreck total disaster fiasco of a mess. :shake: This is going to make the 2000 election look like a knitting circle.

I've already said it: the least bad option there is for the democrats to capture the house and Trump keep the presidency in the election. And it's the least bad but still very bad. The die has been cast during the primaries and recently firmly set with the Harris pick. It's going to be whatever it's going to be, I don't see any foreseeable changing events before the election. Only possibly a death, as both candidates are so old. And I don't know whether the VP candicate would replace the candidate automatically?

I must be missing something, because if those percentages are against the Donald, they would seem to imply
that if the Donald can manage the same swing against Joe as he did against Hilary, he is home and dry.

It wasn't so much a swing as bad polling. We don't know whether it remains bad this year or has been adjusted. I suspect it remains bad because people tend to see what they wish, and most people doing the polling want to see Biden in the White house bringing things back no "normal" in the political arena.
 
Wasn't 538 polling quite good?

At least it pointed out that Hilary wasn't guranteed to win?

Bidens outperforming her in states that matter afaik.
 
No Gorbles, it's not a good thing. I'm not super well founded all that time. But yes, occasionally, after years of interpersonal interaction with specific people in a specific venue, you learn that some people are liars on the internet. I'm more into giving up on them than I used to be. I daresay that taking a year or two to be convinced of it in each case is sort of pivotal, but ya'know. Go with it wherever you want? I unsilenced a bunch of people a while back. A couple of them I was pleasantly surprised by, but that was about it. <shrugs> These aren't 16 year olds, they tend not to change super fast anymore.
 

This may be accurate, but it lacks context. Clinton was riding high this time last year with a massive bump after the DNC. However it was relatively fleeting, and her lead soon dwindled. Clinton's polling numbers were always much more volatile then Biden's, whose numbers in comparison during the last 3 months have been pretty stable. See graph below.
Steve 1.png


Though we should never forget what happened in 2016, things are different this time, whether for better or for worse:
1. Clinton always had much higher disapproval ratings then Biden. Around 10% worse in regards to both 'negative' and 'very negative.'
https://www.npr.org/2020/08/08/900338253/why-the-2020-presidential-election-is-not-2016

2. Trump is not being judged on potential this time, but on performance, and a lot of people think he has done a terrible job.

3. The economy is bad, and that generally isn't good news for the incumbent (see George H Bush).

Biden is a (slightly) more popular candidate then Clinton, and Trump in 2020 is a much more despised figure then he was in 2016.

On the negative side for Biden, it is true he isn't doing as well in battleground states as he is doing nationally. So there is the risk he could win the popular vote even more heavily then Clinton, and yet still lose! Also the potential chaos surrounding voting, such as with mail in ballots potentially not arriving in time, and with people being reluctant to both vote in person and having to queue for hours do make things more unpredictable.

A lot could change between now and November, but lets not assume it will play out the same way it did in 2016.

I suspect it remains bad because people tend to see what they wish, and most people doing the polling want to see Biden in the White house bringing things back no "normal" in the political arena.

I'm not sure that is true. Fox News has Biden polling comfortably in the lead, currently 49 to 42%, and in June their Fox News poll had Biden up by 12!
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/fo...den-yet-more-think-their-neighbors-back-trump
 
Boy... I gotta say... If all the progressive folks that are reluctant to vote for Biden had no information but what the Republican speakers were saying tonight about Biden and Harris, they would think it was the dream ticket. :lol:

Keynote speaker, quote "If you let them, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris will turn this country into a socialist utopia" Really? They will?? :confused: Uhhh, soooo...

And as a humurous aside, the keynote speaker, Tim Scott, was the most rational/reasonable sounding speaker of the night and easily the best speaker on the program. He actually had me thinking that the Republicans should be running him on the ticket.
 
A utopia is supposed to be a positive thing.
Well, etymologically it is supposed to be impossible, unable to exist. But its use connotes something positive.
"Socialist utopia" would sort of be a stupid phrase to use to accuse something.
 
Keynote speaker, quote "If you let them, Joe Biden and Kamala Harris will turn this country into a socialist utopia"
I actually heard people on TV say that Trump was protecting the US from socialism.

I also saw Fox News air an elaborate report on how media (i.e. other than them) are trying to create a narrative about Trump… :hammer2:
 
A utopia is supposed to be a positive thing.
Well, etymologically it is supposed to be impossible, unable to exist. But its use connotes something positive.
"Socialist utopia" would sort of be a stupid phrase to use to accuse something.
Mmmm... Go on...
 
Yeap, the GOP is just saying ‘Don't vote for those people! They want to help you! Be a man and act tought and don't cry!’.
 
A utopia is supposed to be a positive thing.
Well, etymologically it is supposed to be impossible, unable to exist. But its use connotes something positive.
"Socialist utopia" would sort of be a stupid phrase to use to accuse something.

Unless the one using the term were highly Pro-Socialists, like the original Socialist Utopians and Impossiblist in the late 19th, early 20th Century. You may find it hard to believe, and quite surprising, that not everyone has a negative view Socialism, or sees it as a knee-jerk dirty word.
 
Unless the one using the term were highly Pro-Socialists, like the original Socialist Utopians and Impossiblist in the late 19th, early 20th Century. You may find it hard to believe, and quite surprising, that not everyone has a negative view Socialism, or sees it as a knee-jerk dirty word.

Sure, I don't have a negative view of socialism either. My post was about using "utopia" as something possible and at the same time negative. Which makes no sense.
 
Sure, I don't have a negative view of socialism either. My post was about using "utopia" as something possible and at the same time negative. Which makes no sense.

Except maybe as ironically barbed rhetoric.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom