***Official Political Discussion Thread***

[RustyShackleford]

S\o Delk plan is to help the GOP win power over the Dem as a way to convince the Dems they need to focus on black voters (more than they do now)

But the GOP's plan is to impose gerrymandering. voter suppression, voter intimidation, to weaken the black vote.

Once they do that, the electorate to become more white and power will swing even more to rural white voters. Which will make it hard for Dem to win elections by appealing to minority groups, including black Americans.

So it will put pressure on the Democratic Party to move to the right on social justice issues, not to the left. Because again, they have to win elections first.

The GOP, not needing the black vote to win elections now, will have little incentive to pass anything to help black America, they won't need their votes to win.

It makes no ******* sense if you know political history and understands electoral politics.

 

[boris]

Choosing not to be a reliable voting block for the Democratic Party does not mean that black voters should choose to be a reliable voting block for the Republican Party.

My solution is the opposite.

I think that black voters not being a reliable voting block for either party is the solution because it will force progress, in my opinion.

It seems like proper representation would force progress. If forcing progress is your new talking point then it's confusing that you conveniently ignore the fact that the GOP actively suppresses the votes of black people.

 

[IATT]

between the falcons, UGA and Brian kemp getting away with blatant cheating, I don’t have much faith in Georgia

 

[RustyShackleford]

Trump really got like 3 plays he be running

Mans is like my 10 year old self playing NFL Blitz.

Hail Mary, Post, Slant.

Leggo

 

[Based Jesus]

S\o Delk plan is to help the GOP win power over the Dem as a way to convince the Dems they need to focus on black voters (more than they do now)

But the GOP's plan is to impose gerrymandering. voter suppression, voter intimidation, to weaken the black vote.

Once they do that, the electorate to become more white and power will swing even more to rural white voters. Which will make it hard for Dem to win elections by appealing to minority groups, including black Americans.

So it will put pressure on the Democratic Party to move to the right on social justice issues, not to the left. Because again, they have to win elections first.

The GOP, not needing the black vote to win elections now, will have little incentive to pass anything to help black America, they won't need their votes to win.

It makes no ****ing sense if you know political history and understands electoral politics.

Didn't I just talk about this yesterday, how it makes no sense for black people to withhold our votes to get what we want because parties will just appeal to reliable voting blocs instead and we're more likely to get the opposite in that situation?

 

[dwalk31]

It seems like proper representation would force progress. If forcing progress is your new talking point then it's confusing that you conveniently ignore the fact that the GOP actively suppresses the votes of black people.

I don’t ignore that. But this is a great example for junglejim

Here, someone makes a claim that I ignore voter suppression. But I don’t.

In fact, I speak directly to the issue so much in here that everyone knows what I will say.

But if I say it, you’ll call it trolling.

Remarkable.

 

[elpablo21]

This could get ugly. This is just one poll but I’ve read now multiple articles with Republican operatives in traditional red states expressing deep worries about the election in their state.

Really need Biden to drag some of these Senate races across the finish line

 

[IATT]

Trump really got like 3 plays he be running

whole GOP.. only plays they added was attacking AOC, Ilhan and the green new deal.. o and hunter biden

 

[Rootin4EverybodyBlack]

*copy and paste from prior post *

why do y’all keep arguing with this idiot??

 

[elpablo21]

Unbelievable

 

[dacomeup]

I think the party was forced to push further to the left and become more progressive—yes. But the staying at home isn’t the key. The key is demanding that the party earns your vote.

If Hillary won do you think the Democratic Party’s platform would be as progressive as it is now?

Or do you think the Democratic Party became more progressive to make a play for disgruntled Bernie supporters?

First, the party has BEEN pushing further and further left over the last 30 years. Society has become much more progressive, which in we see that people are in favor of more progressive policies and lawmakers. Limiting it do this idea that the party majorly shifted left in response to disgruntled Bernie voters is another nonsensical point that you made, that actually limits the impact that community organizers, local politicians and other progressives do on a daily basis and have done to push the movement.

Second, if you still see people electing officials like the Squad, general progressive ideals becoming more accepted in the mainstream, and the Gen Z'ers being more progressive than millenials, then yes. The party would be as progressive at it is now. This wasn't some play for the Bernie supporters as much as it is a natural progression of the party based on its changing demographics.

How would threatening to take your vote to a party that is REGRESSIVE on all of these issues going to provide any leverage?

 

[boris]

I don’t ignore that. But this is a great example for junglejim

Here, someone makes a claim that I ignore voter suppression. But I don’t.

In fact, I speak directly to the issue so much in here that everyone knows what I will say.

But if I say it, you’ll call it trolling.

Remarkable.

Actually, this is a great example of how you troll. You are gaslighting everyone here and telling us that how we perceive your behavior is wrong.

You're advocating voting for the party that limits black people's ability to force progress and saying it's to force progress? Are you making an illogical argument, or are you conveniently ignoring details to suit your narrative?

 

[junglejim]

You are putting quotes around paraphrases that you’ve made.

When Trump is called out in here for doing something I disagree with—i state plainly that I disagree with it.

Just today someone mentioned people in the GOP denying that systematic racism is real. I said I disagree with any member of the GOP who takes that stance. That is a direct response, not a pivot.

Just above someone asked why would someone choose to support Trump. I outlined my reasons. The fact that you disagree with my reasons, think they are BS, etc. does not mean that I am refusing to answer.

Reasonable people can agree to disagree on polarizing issues.

I completely understand someone’s decision to vote against Trump and the GOP. I also understand someone’s decision to not want to support the Democratic Party.

You really want me to pull direct quotes for all the useless **** you post in here:

"What about the racist stuff he says" "Yeah but last year biden said poor kids are just as bright as white kids"

"white supremacy existed before so it obviously doesnt matter" he said while ignoring that hate crimes are at decades level highs under the administration and white supremacy groups have risen drastically since 2017

This appears to be a pivot/whataboutism

"how do you feel about voter suppression" "Which party suppresses the vote again"

The fact that you act like you dont do this ******** in damn near every response if ******* mind boggling.

I don’t ignore that. But this is a great example for junglejim

Here, someone makes a claim that I ignore voter suppression. But I don’t.

In fact, I speak directly to the issue so much in here that everyone knows what I will say.

But if I say it, you’ll call it trolling.

Remarkable.

See above

 

[IATT]

 

[niketalker23]

Yikes

 

[junglejim]

Yeah but the senate democrats blocked a watered down bill only offering legal protections and aid to small businesses. Both sides

 

[dwalk31]

How would threatening to take your vote to a party that is REGRESSIVE on all of these issues going to provide any leverage?

My leverage argument doesn’t hinge on who you decide to vote for instead.

It is about who you refuse to vote for as a reliable voting block. I know you’d prefer to conflate the two.

Any party not being able to rely on 90% of the black vote forces progress on black issues, in my opinion.

 

[Belgium]

Barr is trying his best to act as Trump's personal fixer and somehow it's still not enough for Trump
https://www.newsmax.com/politics/trump-william-barr/2020/10/14/id/991932/
Trump Declines to Say Barr Will Join Second Term: 'I'm Not Happy'

 

[junglejim]

My leverage argument doesn’t hinge on who you decide to vote for instead.

It is about who you refuse to vote for as a reliable voting block. I know you’d prefer to conflate the two.

Any party not being able to rely on 90% of the black vote forces progress on black issues, in my opinion.

Because as we all know, college aged kids who don't vote have frequently gotten the sole attention of republicans and democrats alike. That's why we always see these great bills reducing the cost of education, housing prices, increasing starting wages, etc and its all because they don't vote.

This is also why we frequently see changes made to social security and medicare. Since republicans have their vote, they know that they can go out and gut social security if they wanted to without consequence from those in the 65 and older block.

 

[blastercombo]

What happened to trumps demand of a “stimulus only” plan he would sign? Did Pelosi morph into the devil and over power trump? “Executive order”

 

[dwalk31]

You really want me to pull direct quotes for all the useless **** you post in here:

"What about the racist stuff he says" "Yeah but last year biden said poor kids are just as bright as white kids"

"white supremacy existed before so it obviously doesnt matter" he said while ignoring that hate crimes are at decades level highs under the administration and white supremacy groups have risen drastically since 2017

This appears to be a pivot/whataboutism

"how do you feel about voter suppression" "Which party suppresses the vote again"

The fact that you act like you dont do this bull**** in damn near every response if ****ing mind boggling.



See above

Again, your quotes are paraphrases that you’ve created based on a misinterpretation of my actual posts.

It seems that you feel that me pointing out the issues with things done by the Democratic Party, or it’s Presidential candidate, is trolling, whataboutismor a pivot.

The issue that you are highlighting with those screenshotsyou can find with many posters in this thread whenever they respond to my post—the common response is some form of “what about what the GOP is doing.”

The last two pages show that.

But that doesn’t bother you. Like I said, your bias is showing.

 

[junglejim]

Again, your quotes are paraphrases that you’ve created based on a misinterpretation of my actual posts.

It seems that you feel that me pointing out the issues with things done by the Democratic Party, or it’s Presidential candidate, is trolling, whataboutismor a pivot.

The issue that you are highlighting with those screenshotsyou can find with many posters in this thread whenever they respond to my post—the common response is some form of “what about what the GOP is doing.”

The last two pages show that.

But that doesn’t bother you. Like I said, your bias is showing.

Pull quotes or it didn't happen. Time to make you do the work that you made me do.

But I'm glad that I can pull exact quotes of you saying things you claimed I paraphrased and you can attribute it to "me misinterpreting your actual posts" despite posting exact quotations.

"Which party suppresses the vote"

"THATS A PARAPHRASE YOU MADE UP"

*Pulls an exact quote in context of you saying it"

"Well you just misinterpreted the quote"

Brilliant, absolutely brilliant

 

[reformeDWS]

Sadly, people think this is true. The point of the hearing is to determine her competency. Trying to pre-determine how she would rule actually politicizes the court.

If you are familiar with RBG, she outlined the “rule” on making pre-judgments on how she would rule in her confirmation hearing.

she was asked if she thinks roe v. wade was correctly decided or how she would have ruled on the matter. this isn't asking for a pre-judgment on hypothetical scenarios. it's a case that was already litigated and decided by the supreme court. her answer to the question goes to the issue of competency. if she answers with someone wholly nonsensical with unrecognized judicial interpretation principles, she's likely not competent. if her rationale is so wildly different than the opinions already on the books by the justices who decided the case, she's likely not competend.

if she can't formulate an opinion on a case with already established facts (which she has had no problem doing before this hearing), how can she be competent?

 

[stuntman mike]

Barr is trying his best to act as Trump's personal fixer and somehow it's still not enough for Trump
https://www.newsmax.com/politics/trump-william-barr/2020/10/14/id/991932/
Trump Declines to Say Barr Will Join Second Term: 'I'm Not Happy'

wow. that's like hitler being mad at goring for not being cruel enough.

 

[dwalk31]

Pull quotes or it didn't happen. Time to make you do the work that you made me do.

I didn’t make you do anything. I didn’t even ask you to.

And I’m not going to go on a quoting spree because you ask me to.

Like I said, it is clear that you place a different level of scrutiny on my posts because of the candidate I support.

At least dacomeup acknowledged the higher level of scrutiny given to my posts. You pretending that’s not what you’re doing is disingenuous.