2020 US Election Thread

[The Batlord]

Originally Posted by elphenor

the wealthy are ****ing children constantly not even conspiratorially

but Hillary is not her husband

You gutless little bitch. If she knows, and you know she knows, and does nothing she's complicit. **** that evil ****.

[OccultHawk]

Originally Posted by elphenor

ok so Obama is complicit too

and you can say say whataboutism

except the question was what is so uniquely bad about Hillary

From a policy standpoint she represents a form of capitalism that is killing all life on earth.

[OccultHawk]

Originally Posted by elphenor

a marginal improvement on Obama made it the most progressive candidacy ever (to win the nomination ofc)

outside internet politics and DSA meetings someone like Biden is considered progressive

If “considered progressive” equals death it’s not much of an improvement on Trump. Seeing as to how I can only get so dead.

[OccultHawk]

Originally Posted by elphenor

if neoliberals are a slow death

Trump is a public flaying

I’d prefer neither

[Lisnaholic]

Originally Posted by Anteater

Nah. Trump was a reaction to eight years of Obama's clinton-esque neoliberalism but without the dotcom boom to smooth over things conservatives didn't like. And what Biden's win actually shows us is that any Democrat who was on the stage last year could have gotten the nomination and likely won the presidency this time because of the sheer levels of turnout. Which means that if people were smarter overall, we'd have President Sanders instead. So now things are going back to the status quo that led us to Trump in the first place. Kanye 2024 yasssssss.

High level of turnout makes a Dem win more likely; is that what you' re saying in the bold bit? It seems like you're belittling Biden's win by saying, "That's just because he's the head of the party that's more popular."

1. Ok? Russia and China are always hacking us or trying to undermine the U.S. in some form or fashion. Just because the news isn't always talking about it doesn't mean it hasn't been happening for a long time. I'm frankly surprised it was reported at all, seeing as there's zero benefit for that kind of information to become public.

I think there is great benefit in having a well-informed public; an ideal shared by everyone who ever picked up a newspaper or watched a news broadcast. As you point out, hacking prob goes on all the time; this story has hit the headlines because of how serious it is. Lucky you weren't a reporter when the Titanic sank, Anteater: "The public don't need to know about this; boats sink all the time."

2. Why would you expect Trump to be commenting on the deaths when it doesn't solve anything one way or the other? That's not how he thinks: any acknowledgement of weakness is just more ammo for his detractors.
There's zero merit in him commenting on it when Americans basically do whatever the hell they want regardless of what the government says. Whether they want to go and protest or eat out at fancy restaurants...we're all our own worst enemy.

Prior to Trump, presidents were labelled as "Healer in Chief", I think, and I'm sure there are plenty of people who respond to a kind word from a President even though, as you say, "it doesn't solve anything one way or the other". There are plenty of other motives for speaking beyond "solving things".
At one level, the idea in bold is true, on the other hand, it's not; people do listen to the government - especially when there is clear, consistent messaging. One reason why or one example of Americans are doing what the Hell they want is on the issue of masks: a bewildering lack of direction, so people do what they want. An example of consistant messaging: smoking damages your health. Not everyone, but plenty of people have followed the government's advice on that.

3. It appears that you don't have the correct story or perhaps your information is outdated. https://thehill.com/policy/healthcar...hipment-delays

Why won't a news story ever stay simple? Thanks for the article, Anteater.

So you have some grifters who are bad at hiding their dirty laundry and others that do a better job at minimizing scrutiny because they're better at lying to us? Got it, thanks.

I found this comment a little troubling. It seems to be an exercise in Conspiracy Theory 101: the statistics don't support my belief, therefore the truth has been hidden.
Here's another example: Stats on genecide of Jews during WWII:
Germany under Hitler: approx 6 million killed
England under Churchill: approx 0 killed
Following your logic, we should therefore conclude that Churchill was better at hiding his policy of Jewish genecide than Hitler.
In one sentence, you take us from facts to fallacy; what's alarming is just how easy and how popular this kind of argument has become.

[OccultHawk]

Here's another example: Stats on genecide of Jews during WWII:
Germany under Hitler: approx 6 million killed
England under Churchill: approx 0 killed
Following your logic, we should therefore conclude that Churchill was better at hiding his policy of Jewish genecide than Hitler.
In one sentence, you take us from facts to fallacy; what's alarming is just how easy and how popular this kind of argument has become.

That’s a bit rich considering the classic Nazi false equivalency you just used.

[Marie Monday]

Originally Posted by jwb

complete cop out imo

Her being a woman makes some people not like her, true

Guess what? That's a double edged sword. Her being a woman is literally the only thing she had to offer from a progressive pov. That's why it was central to her campaign. Because there's nothing to actually get excited about policy wise. It's just purely the symbolic aspect of having a woman prez. So it's not clear that being a woman hurt her more than it helped her. Besides her gender and her association with Bill, there's nothing that differentiates her from a typical career politician like Biden. She might not even have gotten the nomination without that angle.

As for her being a woman makes her unlikable... Once again complete cop out. AOC is very likable and down to earth. Hilary is stiff, robotic, disingenuous. She panders the way all politicians do but she can't pull it off. You can see right through the facade. See: her phoney black folk accent she adopted when talking to a black crowd. Utterly cringe. Or her comment about keeping a bottle of hot sauce in her purse lmao. You guys can sit here and say I would like her if she wasn't a woman all day long but you're projecting. You wouldn't be defending her if she was a man.

I know, I think you're projecting things I didn't imply. I'm not saying that anyone would like her if she were a man, I'm not even claiming that being a woman hurt her more than it helped her. You guys were discussing where the Hillary hatred comes from, and I just think you left out this aspect. I'm not defending her or sympathising with her in any way.

About why people like AOC: she's hot. She also doesn't have the other unlikeable aspects that hillary has, of course. My general point is that being a powerful woman clashes with some key things a woman is supposed to be, like pleasing and such. It's very difficult to navigate that without being labelled a detestable shrew; only a few women manage but they're exceptions.

[Marie Monday]

Originally Posted by OccultHawk

It was her ****ing face. This maniacal hackling grin that clearly betrayed a lust for approval and especially power that looked positively vampiric. She had no ability to feign humility whatsoever. No politician, talk show host, rock star, pro-athlete, kid who just won a national spelling bee... no human being I ever saw came off worse... to me. I’m sure others, deep inside, were more power hungry but no one had ever once appeared more so to me, ever.

There was no way after that that I would ever vote for her. Not against Trump. Not against Hitler. Even if her entire platform had been based on bringing herself and Chelsea down to Florida to suck my dick and give me money I still ... well ... in that case she would’ve had my vote.

You hated her because she couldn't fake not being humble. Why do you expect her to be? Do her male equivalents seem humble? Of course she's a monster, but I think she gets more **** for it than the male monsters around her. Which doesn't mean people are too hard on her, they're just not willing enough to see through those men and condemn them as much. (I'm talking about the average person here, not about you)

And coincidentally, the second paragraph I'm quoting here is a great example of how deeply ingrained the mentality is that women should please.

[The Batlord]

Originally Posted by elphenor

ok so Obama is complicit too

and you can say say whataboutism

except the question was what is so uniquely bad about Hillary

Anyone who is aware of child ****ing and does or says nothing is complicit. What's so hard to understand about that? Bill Clinton is scum and so is his wife.

[OccultHawk]

powerful woman

There’s an interview with Alicia Garza https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alicia_Garza on a recent Intelligence Squared podcast where she talks about “Black Capitalism” and she’s crystal clear that capitalism is never to be celebrated and successful black capitalists are every bit as much to blame as any other capitalist because the foundation of their success is the oppression of others which is exactly why I ridicule BLM slogans on rich athletes’ uniforms. Hillary doesn’t get a pass. Kobe doesn’t get a pass. No one whose success reinforces the capitalist paradigm is a worthwhile role model or inspiration to anyone. Take for instance this bull**** narrative that Kamala Harris is a great example for little girls of color to upon for validation. **** that ****. They should look to all the black women who never had two nickels to rub together and consequently never exploited another person once in their lives and yet they still live a dignified life without being a capitalist oppressor.