2020 US Election Thread

[jwb]

Originally Posted by Lisnaholic

What's with the partisan bias in posting speakers' blunders? Beyond the Dems' Bloopers there are GOP Bloopers, and beyond both are the actual important issues at stake in the election.

My concern is with Biden because he's supposed to be the reasonable Democrat that's gonna take down Trump and he seems possibly ill fit to do so. Trump says crazy **** all the time on purpose but his supporters don't give a ****.

Wow! One mis-judged metaphor while making the clear and commendable point:

"No man has a right to raise their hand to a woman in anger other than in self defense, and that rarely ever occurs."

it's a mistake to make the self defense caveat during a political speech about domestic abuse imo

Saying keep punching at it isn't just a mistake. It's a hilarious mistake.

[Lisnaholic]

Haha! Yes, all very droll. [EDIT: about the "punchline"]

One thing that makes me favour the Dems is that as a party, they better reflect the ethnic diversity of the US. If equality of opportunity is a central plank of social justice, the Dems are closer to reflecting that ideal in the actual make up of their party:

% Party Composition by Race, 2012:

............ .Dems.. GOP
White ....... 60 .... 89
Black ........ 22 ..... 2
Hispanic .... 13 ..... 6
Asian/other . 5 ..... 3

Source: https://news.gallup.com/poll/160373/...tly-white.aspx

The GOP 89% white is not a particularly good look in this day and age, which is why the GOP worked hard to give a different impression at their recent conference.

[Lisnaholic]

Originally Posted by jwb

it's a mistake to make the self defense caveat during a political speech about domestic abuse imo

Saying keep punching at it isn't just a mistake. It's a hilarious mistake.

Well, we all find humour where we can, and I'm glad you were amused. ( Not being sarcastic, jwb, I mean it.)

As for the self defense caveat, it seemed ok to me, and it even had a caveat of its own attached, which suggests Biden can engage his brain and come up with connected meaningful sentences while under pressure.

[SGR]

Originally Posted by Lisnaholic

Haha! Yes, all very droll. [EDIT: about the "punchline"]

One thing that makes me favour the Dems is that as a party, they better reflect the ethnic diversity of the US. If equality of opportunity is a central plank of social justice, the Dems are closer to reflecting that ideal in the actual make up of their party:

% Party Composition by Race, 2012:

............ .Dems.. GOP
White ....... 60 .... 89
Black ........ 22 ..... 2
Hispanic .... 13 ..... 6
Asian/other . 5 ..... 3

Source: https://news.gallup.com/poll/160373/...tly-white.aspx

The GOP 89% white is not a particularly good look in this day and age, which is why the GOP worked hard to give a different impression at their recent conference.

Parties should be judged based on the quality of their ideas and policy proposals, not their ethnic makeup.

Do you think the GOP has less blacks and hispanics because the party is making some active effort to stop them from running as a member of their party (i.e. a lack of opportunity)?

Joe Biden has a pretty good hold on the black vote, but he probably decided to get a woman of color as his running mate to appeal to white liberals who care about the ethnic makeup of the ticket.

[Frownland]

Biden is such a promising candidate that his biggest selling point is a half functioning brain.

Originally Posted by SoundgardenRocks

Do you think the GOP has less blacks and hispanics because the party is making some active effort to stop them from running as a member of their party (i.e. a lack of opportunity)?

Someone has not been paying attention lol

[SGR]

Originally Posted by Frownland

Someone has not been paying attention lol

You're assuming my position on the question. I can see an argument both ways, but I wanted to hear what Lisna's argument was.

[Frownland]

The framing and having to ask in the first place is pretty telling.

[SGR]

Originally Posted by Frownland

The framing and having to ask in the first place is pretty telling.

We need to define causality and effect in regards to the broader question. Let Lisna make the argument. Don't poison the well.

[Frownland]

He's free to make his argument as I am to make mine.

Framing the discussion around tangential literalist flaws in subarguments is a tried and true tactic to ignore or obfuscate that broader argument that poisons the well just as much as pointing it out. I don't think you're doing it intentionally btw, it's just trendy rinow.

[SGR]

Originally Posted by Frownland

He's free to make his argument as I am to make mine.

Framing the discussion around tangential literalist flaws in subarguments is a tried and true tactic to ignore or obfuscate that broader argument that poisons the well just as much as pointing it out. I don't think you're doing it intentionally btw, it's just trendy rinow.

Frown, I must say, most times I go to quote your posts, I find more text than I just saw only seconds ago. No dig, I make edits all the time as well lol.

Fair enough - what part of my question do you take issue with as a tangential literalist flaw? The use of the word "active" to describe "effort"? I'd be more than willing to reframe the question without that.