Trump vs. Biden

[Boogie man]

There is no conversation whatsoever.

Then there is nothing for the mods to "clean up."

No need to be so frazzled, the actual conversation has ended by now. I believe my point has been made loud and clear.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

I mean, come right out the gate with a meme that’s widely known to be used as an insult, then you want to dial it back and pretend like you started out reasonable to begin with but all the big bad lefties dogpiled on you? Then spend multiple pages derailing to complain about a lack of discussion? Where exactly did you actually try to start a discussion, ask questions, etc? All I saw was some generic orange man joke and an implication that this thread is just an echo chamber for a bunch of NPCs. That meme is so 2017.

Seriously, broheim?

Catch more bees with honey.

 

[Jaguar]

I believe my point has been made loud and clear.

No point was made. But if you ever get around to posting about Biden and Trump rather than whining about people who post about Trump's taxes, send everyone a memo.

 

[Boogie man]

I mean, come right out the gate with a meme that’s widely known to be used as an insult, then you want to dial it back and pretend like you started out reasonable to begin with but all the big bad lefties dogpiled on you? Then spend multiple pages derailing to complain about a lack of discussion? Where exactly did you actually try to start a discussion, ask questions, etc? All I saw was some generic orange man joke and an implication that this thread is just an echo chamber for a bunch of NPCs. That meme is so 2017.

Seriously, broheim?

Catch more bees with honey.

No point was made. But if you ever get around to posting about Biden and Trump rather than whining about people who post about Trump's taxes, send everyone a memo.

Right... I'm in no mood for more hostility. It's a no from me.

 

[Jaguar]

I'm in no mood for more hostility.

Good to know. I'm tired of reading it.

 

[Jaguar]

“Vice President Biden intends to deliver his debate answers in words. If the president thinks his best case is made in urine he can have at it,” said Kate Bedingfield, Biden’s deputy campaign manager. “We’d expect nothing less from Donald Trump, who pissed away the chance to protect the lives of 200K Americans when he didn't make a plan to stop COVID-19.”

Biden camp clapback: Trump’s best debate case ‘made in urine’ - POLITICO

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

Right... I'm in no mood for more hostility. It's a no from me.

So what was it you wanted to discuss? We can start over.

 

[anticlimatic]

I'm going to be very surprised if Biden wins legitimately, and I don't blame Trump for being extra paranoid about "tear it all down" dems stealing the election. Hopefully that paranoia just leads to extra scrutiny, and a greater sense that the results of the election are fair, regardless of which way it goes. I really don't get the polls, though. Didn't they do something to fix them since 2016? On the one hand you have Trump, upon which the sun rises and sets for those who both love and hate him; strong, independent, pragmatic economic appeal, a very enthusiastic base, a bevy of accomplishments and a solid record of defending himself against a landslide of unfounded accusations and criticism. And on the other hand you have Biden, barely alive, establishment puppet. Nobody knows anything about him, or gives a crap about him. Kamala Harris is almost universally despised as an authoritarian opportunist. Left wing extremists are pulling the kind of shit they can only fantasize that right wing extremists might pull someday, times a thousand, in public view. And the polls still favor Biden. It really doesn't add up. Hope for a Biden win if you must, or want, but if I were you I would very closely guard my expectations.

 

[Jonny]

Ok, so I'm going to attempt to extract your intentions and contributions from all of your posts in this thread today. I think any good-faith criticism should be seriously considered. It's one of the reasons I support Biden, because he represents an attempt by the Democrats to pick a candidate that is more palatable to middle-America, and the candidate who attempts to understand and empathize with those around him. My hope is that he'll bring real dialogue and collaboration back (or at least try to).

Well this thread sure is an echo chamber.

How do I join in on this? Orange man bad! Am I doing this right?

So, as I said before, this sounds to me like venting frustration. I do this too (mock others) when I am tired of dealing with people directly because efforts seem fruitless. But, to those of us who actually contribute to this thread in good faith, this feels like a mischaracterization and a cop out.

Uh oh, "you guys."

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for now and assume that this wasn't a racist remark.

Similar to the above, this is a flippant response to a perceived insult. You posted the above, you were insulted, so you clapped back. Not particularly constructive, but neither was the response to you. Someone needs to take the first step toward establishing dialogue, however.

I browsed the last few pages of this thread. You speak of compelling evidence against him. I must have missed it.

What I didn't miss was how you selectively chose to identify my "orange man comment" as a trope while ignoring the plethora of anti-trump and trump-voter tropes in here.

No, I'm not assuming that you're "a bunch of npc's." I choose to believe in individual volition. Consider this a reminder that this thread does not represent the "Trump vs. Biden" topic, lest one comes to the inaccurate conclusion that either of those political viewpoints are well-represented here.

I've already responded to this. As I said, I am absolutely more inclined to call out posts that run contrary to my political leanings. I am biased in this way, as I think most everyone is. I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing, so long as there is equal representation. But we need good-faith people from all sides to create such an environment, and it doesn't make us wrong for contributing in the absence of those other sides if they aren't available or willing.

Oh my, my trope-card is getting full. Finger's crossed, I might win money. Help me out guys!!

Here you're just continuing to make light of the criticism against you. I said your initial post was a trope, and you're just sort of riffing on that. Not sure if this is constructive, but it's probably cathartic. I tend to act this way if I feel like an outsider and a bit peevish, but it doesn't really contribute to the thread. To me, it reads as "You all are talking nonsense in here so I'm going to do the same. Your posts are vapid and worthless, so mine will be too."

Found a few. I counted 5 in the following post, how many did you get?

Hehe.

Here, I didn't ask you to count the tropes against Trump, I asked you to quote at least one so I could comment.

Unbalanced? Who said that?

Your comments are ridiculous enough as they are, lying just adds insult to injury.

If you genuinely believe that "both candidates are senile" is an accurate assessment of current affairs then my point has been proven. Don't forget to have fun.

Here you're continuing to defend and fight back against criticism against you, and are clapping back at other members. I think at this point you've completely transitioned to that "I'm going to defend myself and fight back against others" mode. This seems more about you than content now.

Ooh, I have a cult now. Please do tell me what I believe in.

Ditto.

Hahaha Your posts are a gift that keeps on giving. What more enlightened material about my beliefs can you unearth? Are you a psychic?

Ditto.

Wow chief, you're so accurate. I mean, I had no idea of any of this before, but now... you've truly opened my eyes to the impossibly attractive personality that I have. Thanks for the ego boost!

Ps, my trope card is about 90% full. Almost there!!

Ditto.

Oh, that's disappointing. You were on such a strong streak. Care to try again?

What dialogue?

Ditto.

While I appreciate the few who attempt to start dialogue with those of opposing views, I have had too many experiences on here where it becomes untenable to sustain a healthy dynamic. For sure, I knew my initial post would be just too difficult to resist for many, and many assumptions about me and my motives have been made in the process, but if it's that easy, then it's clear to me that the overall hostility in threads such as these is not something that can be overcome.

Case in point, aside from my previous demonstration:

"There's at least a 20% chance that Biden will either start bleeding from the eyes, pisses on stage, or drops dead."
Response: "So you two have something in common after all."

These quotes are taken from the last page. On top of this, both Biden and Trump are presented as senile by so many without further thought. It is depressing indeed. The end result is a divide between factions that only widens. Ironic that in the age of information, communication takes such a hit.

Now you're again actively presenting self-restraint and reflection. But you openly admit that your "initial post would be just too difficult to resist for many..." What did you think would happen? Whether you were playing some psychological game with us or venting frustration or whatever, that post was not conducive to fruitful dialogue. Granted, I have attempted to make it so, but I am agitated with you. The only reason I mention my agitation is because I think it's important for honest, fruitful dialogue for people to be open with how they feel. The sum total of your contributions to this thread bother me, and I'm trying to make things better.

I do call into question your false equivalence between the post about Biden's mental state and the clapback against the OP. To me, the first post was in bad faith, and the second was, while certainly not conducive to changing the tone, not unwarranted. What good would have come from that first post? Is it good practice to respond to comments like that with serious dialogue?

First I will call out a lie:
I have not called people "NPC's." That was another user' insinuation. You know: they assumed to know my stance on things without evidence.

As for the rest of your response, surely me critiquing this notion that both Trump and Biden are senile is me objecting to people criticizing Biden, is it not? Perhaps I should be more clear: pushing a black and white view on the psychological state of the candidates without evidence or proper evaluations means that you shut down conversation prematurely. It widens the divide because you won't allow either position to be redeemable. It is the position of nihilism. Damned if you do, damned if you don't.

I don't disagree with your second paragraph. I think there are plenty of legitimate criticisms of both candidates. The armchair psychiatry (I guess actual psychiatry is also armchair, lol) isn't helpful.

I had responded before you edited your comment. Perhaps it's a mistake to further the conversation with you. Once more, you prove my initial point.

Again, in the loop of self-defense. Hard to have a real conversation in this context.

I will add that - because rereading my last argument it can be misinterpreted - people should criticize all candidates. My protest lies in that communication is made impossible by many ways, one of which is by blanket condemnations (which aren't critiques) of any party. It speaks to a lack of nuance and it kills dialogue and progress.

I disagree. I have nothing to gain from seriously criticizing Biden on this forum. There are plenty of Trump supporters who can do that. Don't get me wrong, I might add a criticism in the context of a larger argument/comparison, if it strengthens my argument for why Biden should be president over Trump. But, I think it is imperative that Trump not be granted a second term.

Are you a psychiatrist who has personally counselled these men and ran tests that confirmed the diagnosis of dementia?
Rhetorical question.



"Bizarre behavior and utterances" is not much of an indicator. Perhaps the debates will shed more light on this.

It's one thing to say that you don't think either candidate has the types of policies and leadership that you would wish for the USA, but calling both men senile does nothing but condemn either as no good. There is no conversation to be had about it, because it is a final judgment based on close to nothing.

In the same spirit, reducing my character to be either "MAGA" or "troll" does little for this conversation. And the little that it does ain't no good.

Perhaps it is frustrating that I do not claim "team Biden" or "team Trump" or "team they-all-suck," but so be it. I don't enjoy playing teams as I'm rather individualistic. That said, I enjoy seeing that people understand that their personal view isn't the only valid one.

You're right, you don't claim to be on any team, at least you haven't in this thread. But the internet is full of disingenuous actors who claim to not be a part of any team but behave as though they are. We're in a weird political environment now. The internet has become a rather awful place, full of bad actors and propagandists.

I'm not claiming one thing or the other about you, but I think being open and honest about your preferences is one of the first steps toward establishing good dialogue with others on the internet in these times.

Rather obvious or not, those comments are what have come to define this thread. The latest actual news on here seems to be about Trump's taxes. So far, no commentators have shown an understanding of finance, and while ignorance in itself isn't necessarily a bad thing, it becomes laughable when it is used as a basis for judgment.


I have had a hard time finding pro-Biden posts in here. The vast majority has been anti-Trump with what seems to be a sudden realization that he's not the only candidate. The lack of expansive viewpoints in here is what makes it an echo chamber.


I'm not very upset about the mischaracterizations. It may be a bit jarring at first, but overall it is very confirming of the current climate. In that sense, having "MAGA" or "troll" pushed on me is a validation of my viewpoint: namely that the current discourse is happening with blinders on. Be mindful not to run off a cliff. -> I say that's a better motto than "MAGA" or "BBB."

This election is more about Trump than it is about Biden, which is why there are more posts about Trump than Biden. Contrary to what some people say, it's OK to vote against a candidate rather than for another. But, I find many things about Biden to be positive on their own, and I'd be happy to discuss them with you in good faith if you're genuinely curious. What I'm not interested in doing, however, is having my time waisted by someone who isn't open to persuasion or who simply wants to waste my time.

I'm left rather cold about your wishes, though I'm sure this comes as no surprise. However, contrary to your earlier statement, I have made effort to clarify my position. It may not have been in the form that you prefer, be it maga or troll, but the answer stands.

Yes, unless someone makes an attempt to truly connect to another, conversations on the internet can feel very cold. I'm skeptical of your intentions in this thread, for instance. They remind me of all that is wrong with our current political climate, much in the same way as you feel about this thread. This is why I'm attempting to engage with you and explain to you what I see and how I feel.

Just because you do not enjoy a particular conversation doesn't mean that you should ask for it to be censored. Your response does vindicate my position, however: shutting out dissenting voices kills thought.

To quote what you have written in your signature:

"I would rather have a mind opened by wonder than one closed by belief.
― Gerry Spence"

True, but calling for mods doesn't imply that anyone will be censored. Ultimately, it will be based on the discretion of more than one person.

Then there is nothing for the mods to "clean up."

No need to be so frazzled, the actual conversation has ended by now. I believe my point has been made loud and clear.

I'm actually not quite sure what your point was. To be sure, you were critical of the anti-Trump posts in this thread. But, what specifically would you like people like me to do differently going forward?

Right... I'm in no mood for more hostility. It's a no from me.

I can understand. It would be exhausting and socially draining to be defending yourself in the way you have above. I know the feeling. I did try to engage with you in good faith, however. It seemed, at least at that time, you were looking for conflict. Like I said, your first post appeared to come from frustration.

 

[Jonny]

I'm going to be very surprised if Biden wins legitimately, and I don't blame Trump for being extra paranoid about "tear it all down" dems stealing the election. Hopefully that paranoia just leads to extra scrutiny, and a greater sense that the results of the election are fair, regardless of which way it goes. I really don't get the polls, though. Didn't they do something to fix them since 2016? On the one hand you have Trump, upon which the sun rises and sets for those who both love and hate him; strong, independent, pragmatic economic appeal, a very enthusiastic base, a bevy of accomplishments and a solid record of defending himself against a landslide of unfounded accusations and criticism. And on the other hand you have Biden, barely alive, establishment puppet. Nobody knows anything about him, or gives a crap about him. Kamala Harris is almost universally despised as an authoritarian opportunist. Left wing extremists are pulling the kind of shit they can only fantasize that right wing extremists might pull someday, times a thousand, in public view. And the polls still favor Biden. It really doesn't add up. Hope for a Biden win if you must, or want, but if I were you I would very closely guard my expectations.

• In 2016 Trump lost the popular vote and won by virtue of razor thin margins in Pennsylvania, Wisconsin and Michigan.
• He hasn't broadened his appeal beyond his base since then.
• The polls have been fixed to weight for education, which was a central driver of the polling discrepancy in 2016. Also, pollsters are spending more time on state-polls instead of national polls.
• I don't think Trump has a bevy of accomplishments. My perception of him is he signs Republican legislation that crosses his desk and fails pretty miserably in many other endeavors. He watches a lot of TV and golfs and engages in self-promotion. Furthermore, his "solid record of defending himself" consists of simply lying and calling every report about him "fake news."
• Believe it or not, Biden is an actual human being with free will, intellect, and the ability to make decisions for himself. He sets his own agenda with input from his staff and colleagues.
• Kamala Harris is not "universally despised" by any stretch of the imagination. Kamala Harris Polls Higher Favorability Rating Than Trump, Pence—And Biden I also think your characterization as an "authoritarian opportunist" is off base.
• What kind of shit are "left wing extremists" pulling?
• Yes, the polls favor Biden because Trump is historically unpopular.

I am hoping for a Biden win. I'm also phone banking, and donating money to his campaign, so it's more than just hope. I'm fighting (to the extend I can) for a Biden win. I do find it really unsettling that you'd be "very surprised if Biden wins legitimately." Like, what reality are you aligning yourself to that doesn't see a legitimate Biden victory as a very real possibility. It's just odd.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Arizona: Biden +3.3
Colorado: Biden +9.8
Florida: Biden +1.6
Georgia: Trump: +1.2
Iowa: Trump +0.8
Michigan: Biden +6.9
Minnesota: Biden +9.0
Missouri: Trump +6.8
Montana: Trump +8.2
Nevada: Biden +6.4
New Hampshire: Biden +6.7
North Carolina: Biden +1.1
Ohio: Biden +1.0
Pennsylvania: Biden +4.7
South Carolina: Trump +6.9
Texas: Trump +1.9
Wisconsin: Biden +6.5

This should be a debate day so let's see where we are now in comparison with a few days ago. (I added a few states/districts into the mix)



Alaska: Trump +4.5
Arizona: Biden +3.5
Colorado: Biden +9.9
Florida: Biden +1.7
Georgia: Trump: +1.1
Iowa: Trump +0.8
Maine 2nd: Biden +3.4
Michigan: Biden +6.9
Minnesota: Biden +8.7
Missouri: Trump +6.8
Montana: Trump +8.1
Nebraska 2nd: Biden +5.4
Nevada: Biden +6.4
New Hampshire: Biden +6.8
North Carolina: Biden +1.1
Ohio: Biden +1.0
Pennsylvania: Biden +5.5
South Carolina: Trump +7.6
Texas: Trump +1.9
Virginia: Biden +10.0
Wisconsin: Biden +6.5



Minimal changes with certain exception of what is probably the most important state, Pennsylvania.

 

[Boogie man]

Ok, so I'm going to attempt to extract your intentions and contributions from all of your posts in this thread today. I think any good-faith criticism should be seriously considered. It's one of the reasons I support Biden, because he represents an attempt by the Democrats to pick a candidate that is more palatable to middle-America, and the candidate who attempts to understand and empathize with those around him. My hope is that he'll bring real dialogue and collaboration back (or at least try to).



So, as I said before, this sounds to me like venting frustration. I do this too (mock others) when I am tired of dealing with people directly because efforts seem fruitless. But, to those of us who actually contribute to this thread in good faith, this feels like a mischaracterization and a cop out.



Similar to the above, this is a flippant response to a perceived insult. You posted the above, you were insulted, so you clapped back. Not particularly constructive, but neither was the response to you. Someone needs to take the first step toward establishing dialogue, however.



I've already responded to this. As I said, I am absolutely more inclined to call out posts that run contrary to my political leanings. I am biased in this way, as I think most everyone is. I don't necessarily think it's a bad thing, so long as there is equal representation. But we need good-faith people from all sides to create such an environment, and it doesn't make us wrong for contributing in the absence of those other sides if they aren't available or willing.



Here you're just continuing to make light of the criticism against you. I said your initial post was a trope, and you're just sort of riffing on that. Not sure if this is constructive, but it's probably cathartic. I tend to act this way if I feel like an outsider and a bit peevish, but it doesn't really contribute to the thread. To me, it reads as "You all are talking nonsense in here so I'm going to do the same. Your posts are vapid and worthless, so mine will be too."



Here, I didn't ask you to count the tropes against Trump, I asked you to quote at least one so I could comment.



Here you're continuing to defend and fight back against criticism against you, and are clapping back at other members. I think at this point you've completely transitioned to that "I'm going to defend myself and fight back against others" mode. This seems more about you than content now.



Ditto.



Ditto.



Ditto.



Ditto.



Now you're again actively presenting self-restraint and reflection. But you openly admit that your "initial post would be just too difficult to resist for many..." What did you think would happen? Whether you were playing some psychological game with us or venting frustration or whatever, that post was not conducive to fruitful dialogue. Granted, I have attempted to make it so, but I am agitated with you. The only reason I mention my agitation is because I think it's important for honest, fruitful dialogue for people to be open with how they feel. The sum total of your contributions to this thread bother me, and I'm trying to make things better.

I do call into question your false equivalence between the post about Biden's mental state and the clapback against the OP. To me, the first post was in bad faith, and the second was, while certainly not conducive to changing the tone, not unwarranted. What good would have come from that first post? Is it good practice to respond to comments like that with serious dialogue?



I don't disagree with your second paragraph. I think there are plenty of legitimate criticisms of both candidates. The armchair psychiatry (I guess actual psychiatry is also armchair, lol) isn't helpful.



Again, in the loop of self-defense. Hard to have a real conversation in this context.



I disagree. I have nothing to gain from seriously criticizing Biden on this forum. There are plenty of Trump supporters who can do that. Don't get me wrong, I might add a criticism in the context of a larger argument/comparison, if it strengthens my argument for why Biden should be president over Trump. But, I think it is imperative that Trump not be granted a second term.



You're right, you don't claim to be on any team, at least you haven't in this thread. But the internet is full of disingenuous actors who claim to not be a part of any team but behave as though they are. We're in a weird political environment now. The internet has become a rather awful place, full of bad actors and propagandists.

I'm not claiming one thing or the other about you, but I think being open and honest about your preferences is one of the first steps toward establishing good dialogue with others on the internet in these times.



This election is more about Trump than it is about Biden, which is why there are more posts about Trump than Biden. Contrary to what some people say, it's OK to vote against a candidate rather than for another. But, I find many things about Biden to be positive on their own, and I'd be happy to discuss them with you in good faith if you're genuinely curious. What I'm not interested in doing, however, is having my time waisted by someone who isn't open to persuasion or who simply wants to waste my time.



Yes, unless someone makes an attempt to truly connect to another, conversations on the internet can feel very cold. I'm skeptical of your intentions in this thread, for instance. They remind me of all that is wrong with our current political climate, much in the same way as you feel about this thread. This is why I'm attempting to engage with you and explain to you what I see and how I feel.



True, but calling for mods doesn't imply that anyone will be censored. Ultimately, it will be based on the discretion of more than one person.



I'm actually not quite sure what your point was. To be sure, you were critical of the anti-Trump posts in this thread. But, what specifically would you like people like me to do differently going forward?



I can understand. It would be exhausting and socially draining to be defending yourself in the way you have above. I know the feeling. I did try to engage with you in good faith, however. It seemed, at least at that time, you were looking for conflict. Like I said, your first post appeared to come from frustration.

I'm torn about this. While I appreciate the attempt at dialogue, I'm very confused on why you chose to include posts of mine that were deleted by a mod. First, they have been deemed "trolling, combative, off topic, or part of the back and forth of that conversation" - and second, the context is lost. That puts me in a bind, I don't know if you are aware. I'm also confused as to why you feel the need to "extract my intentions." You claim it's to explain how you see and feel about all this. Fair enough. Yet, explaining to me what my -supposed- intentions were does not follow from that. Lotta assumptions going on there.

I don't see much to respond to here, to be honest. Do you want me to confirm or deny your idea of my intentions? Either way, I'm not very interested in that.

Perhaps I can respond to at least two things: "I have nothing to gain from seriously criticizing Biden on this forum." and "This election is more about Trump than it is about Biden."
These beliefs really set the tone for this thread.
It seems that Biden's role is taken for granted, almost as if he is a carton board character that could have been anyone. The impression I get from reading threads such as these, is that Biden might as well be called the Anti-Trump-vote. Almost as if he doesn't have an agenda.
But he does, and it is not smart to ignore this reality. He is the establishment. If you scrutinize what was done under Obama... But this election isn't about Biden so as much as about Trump, you say...
I think it's a mistake to turn a blind eye to half of the debate. There can't be an honest conversation if you aren't willing to identify the issues of one's own side. Pages upon pages of barely a mention of Biden. I know you're aware of the bias of the active members here. Not just on this thread, but the entire forum, really. Many assumed intentions are imagined to be behind people who would vote for Trump - assumptions which are neither fact-driven nor challenged. This is not conductive for conversation. I do believe that I was correct in identifying this as an echo-chamber. Be willing to be critical. Obama was not unifying. Trump was not an accident. Race was not the motive. Biden...

The funny thing - at least I find it funny - is that, when browsing about a dozen recent pages, I have encountered more than a few incredibly "insulting" statements. Of course, they weren't targeting the people here. They target any potential intruder with a disagreeing mind - about half the country. That breeds a hostile environment. Perhaps, if dialogue between opposing viewpoints is what is wanted for this thread, those comments should also be challenged - not just the ones that challenge the status quo.

Perhaps this thread would've been better off called "Anti Trump." What's Biden got to do with it anyway...

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Heh heh. It would have been funnier if she'd stopped after the second sentence.

Since (I'm hoping) right media can't manipulate live footage, it'll be interesting to see how many people question the narrative they've been fed from Trump and Fox (et al). I can't remember if I've posted it here, but I was watching a CNN piece of guy interviewing people at a Trump rally and a lot of them believed the manipulated footage was real (not surprising) - but he wasn't mean about it like Jordan Klepper or Triumph the Insult Comic (who are both funny, but right now it's the last thing this country needs).

It continues to amaze me that anyone can support Trump and question Biden's mental acuity. Even if I ignore the news and base my opinion of Trump's mental acuity on his tweets and interviews (not sound bites taken out of context, but actual interviews), I still don't think he's fit to be a manager at Subway. The only thing that makes sense is that these people are entirely informed by "news" sources that show manipulated footage. So I wonder what will happen when his "performance" isn't anywhere near as bad as the propaganda has been preaching.

Eta, here's the CNN piece: Trump's use of false content is often defended as humor. But his supporters aren't always in on the joke

This Gaffigan tweet led me to it. I wish more celebrities behaved like Gaffigan when using the platform fame gives them.

 

[Jonny]

I'm torn about this. While I appreciate the attempt at dialogue, I'm very confused on why you chose to include posts of mine that were deleted by a mod. First, they have been deemed "trolling, combative, off topic, or part of the back and forth of that conversation" - and second, the context is lost. That puts me in a bind, I don't know if you are aware. I'm also confused as to why you feel the need to "extract my intentions." You claim it's to explain how you see and feel about all this. Fair enough. Yet, explaining to me what my -supposed- intentions were does not follow from that. Lotta assumptions going on there.

I don't see much to respond to here, to be honest. Do you want me to confirm or deny your idea of my intentions? Either way, I'm not very interested in that.

Perhaps I can respond to at least two things: "I have nothing to gain from seriously criticizing Biden on this forum." and "This election is more about Trump than it is about Biden."
These beliefs really set the tone for this thread.
It seems that Biden's role is taken for granted, almost as if he is a carton board character that could have been anyone. The impression I get from reading threads such as these, is that Biden might as well be called the Anti-Trump-vote. Almost as if he doesn't have an agenda.
But he does, and it is not smart to ignore this reality. He is the establishment. If you scrutinize what was done under Obama... But this election isn't about Biden so as much as about Trump, you say...
I think it's a mistake to turn a blind eye to half of the debate. There can't be an honest conversation if you aren't willing to identify the issues of one's own side. Pages upon pages of barely a mention of Biden. I know you're aware of the bias of the active members here. Not just on this thread, but the entire forum, really. Many assumed intentions are imagined to be behind people who would vote for Trump - assumptions which are neither fact-driven nor challenged. This is not conductive for conversation. I do believe that I was correct in identifying this as an echo-chamber. Be willing to be critical. Obama was not unifying. Trump was not an accident. Race was not the motive. Biden...

The funny thing - at least I find it funny - is that, when browsing about a dozen recent pages, I have encountered more than a few incredibly "insulting" statements. Of course, they weren't targeting the people here. They target any potential intruder with a disagreeing mind - about half the country. That breeds a hostile environment. Perhaps, if dialogue between opposing viewpoints is what is wanted for this thread, those comments should also be challenged - not just the ones that challenge the status quo.

Perhaps this thread would've been better off called "Anti Trump." What's Biden got to do with it anyway...

I included all of your posts precisely to get a more complete picture. I agree that there is some context missing, as I didn't quote those folks to whom you were responding. However, the most important component was your own words. I did read the context when I was commenting, however.

You're right, there are "lotta assumptions", but they're spoken plainly to give you a chance to clarify. To me, that is a great gift. Better to plainly speak my assessment and allow you to clarify than to assume and not open myself up to correction.

I don't want you to do anything you don't want to do. I just wanted to respond to your posts because I saw in them hurt and discomfort.

In some ways, Biden's role is taken for granted. Let me give you an analogy:

Suppose I were to offer you the choice between (1) a hog-liver sandwich on stale bread, and (2) a pint of human excrement. You have to eat one. We could certainly spend some time talking about what sorts of condiments are on the sandwich, or about why the corn kernels in the shit are actually a good source of fiber, but I'd be much more compelled to speak about the dangers of eating human excrement. That choice truly is more about avoiding eating shit than the merits of that particular sandwich.

Now, this isn't to say that Trump is human shit or that Biden is some gross sandwich. But, I want to make clear that some choices are such that it is less about what you're for and more about what you're against. How many times have you been in a group and said "I'm OK with anything but seafood" or something similar. It's not abnormal or wrong. But, were I a Trump supporter my goal would be to shift the discussion away from Trump and toward Biden, and I would make similar claims about how this thread "isn't doing it right." Your actions, while perhaps intended differently, are very similar to strategic actions taken by supporters of the president to his benefit. And they aren't generally received favorably because they aren't really germane to the choice. "You shouldn't only talk about why human shit is bad for you...in fact, the science is sort of dubious on that. We really need to be talking about how liver is harmful as well. You are all just echoing each other!" You're essentially talking down to us and criticizing the way we are contributing to this thread collectively even though we aren't coordinating our efforts or doing anything other than behaving as intelligent, reasonable individuals.

It isn't that I'm turning a blind eye to Biden. As a part of my efforts phone-banking for him, I've become more familiar with his policies and generally agree with his agenda. But I would have done the same for any of the candidates running in the primary.

How would this thread be less of an echo-chamber without contributions from folks like you? You're asking us to speak differently about things, and I wonder why that is? Aren't you making assumptions about us in that suggestion? As though we are doing ourselves a disservice by advocating in a way we'd prefer? I'm not trying to echo anyone.

Obama may have not been unifying, but Trump absolutely isn't. And while Trump wasn't an accident, I think you're making some big assumptions about why/how he was elected. While the establishment isn't ideal, Trump has shown himself to be worse. He's corrupt to the core, and acts almost (or maybe always) exclusively in self-interest.

I think there is opportunity for contributions to this thread by pro-Trump posters, but the harsh reality is that they will face criticism. It's only natural when you have a lopsided group of posters that those on one side will feel ganged-up on and attacked. But in truth, it's simply a matter of a collection of individuals independently reacting to ideas with which they disagree. Each of us has a right to be critical of "bad" ideas and to comment on them. I'm not sure how we could change that without some top-down planning, which would be even worse.

 

[Totenkindly]

This oughta be interesting....

Presidential debate: Trump looking for 11th-hour reset but mostly shuns prep - CNNPolitics

Efforts to focus the preparation-averse Trump on the upcoming debate have occurred in sporadic bursts, including one 30-minute session last weekend. This past Sunday they resumed with a short question-and-answer period utilizing the flashcards campaign advisers prepared to try and hone what have so far been unwieldy attempts to define Democratic rival Joe Biden. Trump did less than two hours of prep total, a person familiar told CNN.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

This oughta be interesting....

Presidential debate: Trump looking for 11th-hour reset but mostly shuns prep - CNNPolitics

Oh it's gonna be a trainwreck. Although I'm guessing his most hardcore supporters will still see any performance he gives as an overwhelming triumph, if 2016 debates are any indication. I remember in one of the debates it took less than 5 minutes for his face to turn red and for him to lose his cool while Hillary was rebutting. I think Biden is going to try to use subtle jabs to get under Trump's skin.

Pundits will note the President's hotheaded manner vs Biden's relatively cool manner, so Trump will "prepare" for the second debate, and we'll hear how we're expecting a clamer, more levelheaded Trump speak, but of course that will be pissed away in a manner of minutes when he inevitably goes off script after losing his temper.

Not a big Biden fan but I'm looking forward to seeing the contrasting styles and at least hearing Biden sound like a 1950s sitcom dad using words like malarkey a lot. Bonus points if he refers to something Trump says as 'a bunch of stuff'.

 

[Totenkindly]

I rarely watch debates in full and live, but I'm thinking I'll be watching tonight...

 

[The Cat]

Oh it's gonna be a trainwreck. Although I'm guessing his most hardcore supporters will still see any performance he gives as an overwhelming triumph, if 2016 debates are any indication. I remember in one of the debates it took less than 5 minutes for his face to turn red and for him to lose his cool while Hillary was rebutting. I think Biden is going to try to use subtle jabs to get under Trump's skin.

Not a big Biden fan but I'm looking forward to seeing the contrasting styles and at least hearing Biden sound like a 1950s sitcom dad using words like malarkey a lot. Bonus points if he refers to something Trump says as 'a bunch of stuff'.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]

I rarely watch debates in full and live, but I'm thinking I'll be watching tonight...

making my son watch for educational purposes. so I'll be watching with him.

 

[Kingu Kurimuzon]