Displaying 391 To 420 Of 19,504 Comments Biden Takes on Trump: A Call to Integrity and Courage in The Wave of Two Mass Shootings Kes, I would think that someone who is of such a mindset would be unable to differentiate between a clinical description of such a mindset and a personal attack. Just as some people who are racists are outraged at being called racists, they don’t recognize their own behavior as being racist so describing it accurately would be viewed by them as a personal attack. As some have said towards Trump and his protests of being called a racist, “If you don’t want to be seen as a racist, stop saying racist things.” » Posted By AdLib On August 21, 2019 @ 9:12 pm Kes, I’m sorry you had to deal with having a family member with Asperger’s but you have become very wise about the way people behave (from your professional experience as well). I like to think I understand human psychology well but there are such complexities in so many people, you can sometimes feel like you’ve barely scratched the surface. What you say really makes sense to me, that sense of tunnelvision, locked in on “defeating” the other in any way possible including unethically because there is one singular, narrow focus, winning. And with such a narrow focus, they can become oblivious as to how they are behaving and how they are perceived. Which explains the projection you describe. I would think there may be a subconscious or suppressed awareness of their improper tactics that presses them to project it on the other party as a way of absolving themselves. The Bernie Bros (and Sis’s) are still out there all around Twitter, I see them narrowly focused on purity and even with Trump in office, threatening not to vote Dem if Bernie isn’t the nom. Those with the mentality you describe are stuck in a trap. I like to think there must be some way to get them out of it using reason but that’s the deceptive thing about mental issues, as you mention with Asperger’s, they can’t necessarily be reasoned out of an invisible but real condition. The mind is often a fascinating but sometimes disappointing thing. Such potential that can be tapped and yet for physiological and psychological reasons, that potential is sometimes never fully realized. » Posted By AdLib On August 21, 2019 @ 8:56 pm In pursuit of getting conversations back on track, this is my last on all of this. I described your comments and disrespectful behavior with common, descriptive adjectives. However, I never used a pejorative towards you nor a disgusting phrase to describe you. You have had conflicts and engaged in personal insults with multiple members here, not just me. We have been quite lenient about your breaking our Terms of Use in the hope that you would eventually dial it down. But as the saying goes, no good deed goes unpunished. So, moving forward, it would be best for everyone to have conversations with each other like they were neighbors, people with good will and deserving of respect. » Posted By AdLib On August 21, 2019 @ 8:31 pm We’ll have to agree to disagree on the “puts together smart arguments” thing, multiple members from Yabberz and The Planet have expressed their views on his credibility and honesty but as long as he refrains from personal insults, there won’t need to be further issues. » Posted By AdLib On August 21, 2019 @ 8:11 pm I’d agree that Biden’s not a ”bad” guy I laughed out loud at that! Your other comments reminded me of what Warrren said to Elmer Fudd…er…John Delaney when he attacked her for having vision: WARREN: “I don’t understand why anybody goes to all the trouble of running for president of the United States just to talk about what we really can’t do and shouldn’t fight for. I don’t get it.” I think that can be applied to all the Establishment Dems and MSM pundits trying to argue Biden into the nomination. Why do Dems always have to settle for less than what they really want? Repubs never have to. The message this “ekectability” meme really pushes is, Dems shouldn’t try to really change anything, the status quo before Trump is good enough. No it’s not, the status quo is dooming the world and the generations that are coming up. The economic injustice, health care problems, immigration, student debt, climate change, we need big changes and a status quo candidate like Biden would be almost an automatic one-termer if he won, handing the WH right back to the Repubs (and Ivanka?) just four years later. I don’t see how Biden, at 81, would be able in any way to win re-election in 2024. So these “electability” shills are trying to promote a four year break from Repubs followed by at least another four years of them re-instituting all the Trump policies Biden would have reversed. It’s crazy, such short term thinking has been the self-sabotage that the U.S. and the Dems and Repubs have brought about. We need 8 years of a Dem president to fix what Trump has destroyed and make big, positive changes in our democracy, economy and society. IMO, a vote for Biden is a vote for a Repub president in 2024. » Posted By AdLib On August 21, 2019 @ 8:07 pm Very true, Kalima, you know me, I am an eternal optimist about turning around misguided people but that can be wasted sometimes. Many won’t change, they are driven to behave poorly and they simply don’t know how to be any better. We have bent the rules a bit to allow more disrespect in comments than our Terms of Use allow, considering we have new members from Yabberz and we wanted to give everyone time to acclimate to the neighborly conversation we have here at The Planet. Almost all of our new members never needed that though, they’ve shown to be thoughtful, earnest and respectful of others from the start. As you say, several weeks and many interactions in that time is more than enough for anyone to understand what is and isn’t acceptable behavior between people of good faith who want to honestly and constructively discuss issues. » Posted By AdLib On August 21, 2019 @ 7:52 pm It’s never too late, NoMan. I agree, I think it’s just a matter of time and a few more debates until Biden’s deficits as a candidate become more apparent to more voters and Warren’s assets become more visible. There are many Dem voters who won’t really engage or watch debates until we get closer to the actual elections and caucuses. We forget, because we’re engaged citizens, that many Dem voters aren’t as much. That’s why I think Biden’s lead is very soft, many supporting him just know him so they support him and haven’t been following the primary campaign and debates. And as I mentioned, Biden’s fear campaign feels desperate. If all he’s got is trying to convince Dems to vote for him despite his being a mediocre choice, out of fear of a second term for Trump, he’s in a very shaky position. This whole phony meme about electability was disproven when Hillary ran against Trump. She was the most qualified, experienced and moderate in the race but since she didn’t inspire Obama voters, she couldn’t win in the Electoral College. Same goes for Biden. He energizes nobody. Yes, many voters will be energized to vote against Trump…but Warren or any other candidate would benefit the same from that though their energizing of the base would give them a bigger advantage. I’m just looking forward to the debates, it’s annoying a bit that we’ve had a 2 month break between them. I think that accounts for Biden still having a lead. Biden isn’t a bad guy but he’s not a great candidate. He’s lost two primaries already, I’d rather go with a winner. And a woman. » Posted By AdLib On August 21, 2019 @ 7:08 pm Kes, this is so incisive and right on the money. People like you describe are impervious to truth and oblivious to how they’re perceived. They have an emotional need that is in direct conflict with dealing with truths and reality. Thus they reside in an inconsistent bubble of delusion and denial. As you describe, they can’t let go of their untruths and poor arguments because they see the conflict as the goal. To matter, in their minds, they must try to eternally “be right” while their deficits of being self-deluded and reliant on expressing made up “facts” and misrepresented numbers exposes them as dishonest. I did not know about that preoccupation with numbers as part of the syndrome but it makes a lot of sense. Thanks for your insights on this, it really puts things in perspective. » Posted By AdLib On August 21, 2019 @ 6:48 pm Bingo! And what I haven’t seen discussed yet is that Biden is running on fear. I thought us Dems despised that Trump ran and is running on fear? Biden is taking a very manipulative and cynical path now, he is earning my stronger opposition each day. » Posted By AdLib On August 21, 2019 @ 10:07 am To be frank, it’s clear for all to see that you make up and slant much of what you present as “facts”. That is your MO. You complain that all the polls and trends that don’t support what you want to believe are no good and should be ignored and instead offer tortured conclusions, cherry picked numbers and misrepresentations to “prove” you’re right. The irony is that they don’t, they prove that you don’t present your opinion in good faith and see truth as an adversary. That’s not a horrible or unusual thing. It does make it somewhat moot though to try and discuss facts and numbers with someone who claims to respect them but in practice, goes into denial every time they conflict with his views. And a small thing, repeating back at me, my grounded and supported observations of how you present your opinions is like children chanting, “I know you are but what am I?”. It comes off more playground than serious. I realize this response may seem harsh but my intention is just to express my analysis, as I do on any issue, on the manner in which you try to debate using disingenuous and hypocritical approaches. Trying to be “right” through a kneejerk response to disqualify all factual data that disputes your beliefs or hopes disqualifies your own opinions as prejudiced. When you can’t admit facts simply because you wish they weren’t true, that is called being in denial. It is not reflective of someone who respects numbers or seeks the truth. It’s the Completion Backwards Principle that many Republicans use. Arrive at a conclusion one wants to believe first then accept only the facts that support it and deny all the facts that undermine it. Your approach actually affirms that you have an opinion that is unsupportable by the whole truth so you have to scramble to swat away all the facts and truths that disprove it. “That poll doesn’t count! That trend doesn’t matter! Only the ones that I think prove me right are legit!” Really? How mature and enlightened is that mindset? People who are genuinely seeking the truth not only accept all truths but seek them out. The way it works in a genuine debate is that both parties stipulate that facts are facts, polls are just as legit when they don’t support your position as when they do. Trends are by definition, not fleeting, they are strong indicators of the direction something is going in over a meaningful period of time. And the longer a trend goes, the stronger and more meaningful it is (a 1 month trend is less informative than a 4 month trend…real numbers guys know that). Have you ever considered that the reason you feel the need to do such backflips and contortions to support your perspective is that it may just be incorrect? Why don’t I misrepresent numbers and polls? Why don’t I try to disqualify polls that don’t show what I’d like to see? I’m not threatened by truths. I arrive at my conclusions over time, by reviewing and researching information and use corroborating information from multiple trusted sources to test and affirm my position. I don’t have to do all that, I could just make it all up and deny truths I don’t like…you know what I mean. I’m just a fellow citizen in this country but I see it as an important responsibility to be informed and share what I’ve discovered with others. And defend the principle of the truth however I can in my own small way. If I discover that something I believed is inaccurate, I would rather know that and be on the track that’s true than be in denial and keep insisting that a disproven belief is correct out of insecurity and a fear of looking “wrong”. Lastly, whether in politics or in conversations, I don’t look the other way when people are disingenuous, in denial, manipulative or lack a respect for truth. I respect truth too much to just stand by while someone else tosses litter all over it. So, while we honestly respect freedom of expression at The Planet and you are welcome to post your views however you wish (as long as they don’t violate our Terms of Use of course), if you continue this disingenuous approach of trying to disqualify facts that you don’t like and misrepresent numbers that you think support you, others will use their freedom of expression to continue to call it out for what it is. It’s so much easier to be “right” by acknowledging and processing all truths then arriving at a conclusion. But to each, his own. » Posted By AdLib On August 21, 2019 @ 9:50 am self-de·lu·sion the action of deluding oneself; failure to recognize reality. » Posted By AdLib On August 20, 2019 @ 11:10 pm How desperate is it that Biden is already having to use his last resort of, “Okay, I may not be a great choice for president but you gotta pick me cause I’m the only one who can save you from Trump!” I’ve seen the demos for many polls, Biden’s voters aren’t the bros as much, it’s the older folks. Older Dems who just want to play it safe and know Joe from all the decades he’s been around. The folks who want to be conservative. Who don’t want change. Who never decide the GE. They are a minority in the Dem Party though. If Biden is at 29% that means that there’s 81% who don’t want to go with the “safe” but unsatisfying choice. As the field shrinks, Warren and others will grow in their support but Biden’s pretty maxed out on the moderate/conservative/establishment vote. Looking forward to the next debate. The more chances Biden has to stumble, he will. The more chances Warren has to inspire, she will. » Posted By AdLib On August 20, 2019 @ 3:45 pm Do you have a trampoline in your backyard? Where do you practice your backflips? I provide a trend of 4 months of polls that favors Warren, you say trends are meaningless. I post individual polls bracketing a month that favor Warren, you say individual polls are meaningless. Meanwhile… You offer a questionable average for one month of polls that you claim favors Biden and say it’s meaningful. You offer one CNN poll that favors Biden and present it as meaningful. Have to wear my sunglasses reading your posts, the hypocrisy and denial is glaring. Believe whatever makes you happy, we’re all entitled to be happy. Ignore the trends and polls that make you unhappy, make up whatever numbers put you at ease, it’s a free country. But reality is still happening all around you even if you refuse to look at it. The cat that puts its head under the bed may think that the world just disappeared but people should know better. » Posted By AdLib On August 20, 2019 @ 3:38 pm I’m very impressed with your son, Kes! He’s right that polling can’t capture that one element that can override everything else, enthusiasm. By nature, pollsters want to include specific cross-sections of voters that they feel will give them an accurate balance of the population. But if one set of voters are far more enthusiastic, even if that is asked, the polling results arrived at will still be reflective of that predetermined cross-section. At the same time, the polls weren’t far off. Hillary did win by 2%, polls generally predicted her to win by around 3% (and there is of course a margin of error that fit these results). Trump’s win in FL now is in question, knowing that the Feds have confirmed Russia broke into their election system and they are hiding what happened from the public. Voter suppression also played a role as did the Russian interference and of course Comey and the FBI. But in those three swing states Trump barely won in, there was monkey business too. So while the Electoral College was given to Trump, it is in question as to whether he actually won it. That said, the election was much closer than it should have been, Hillary running against a racist sexual molester. All she needed was to have the voter enthusiasm that a non-establishment, non-moderate would have had and Trump would have lost. An inescapable fact is that Hillary had far lower turnout by the Dem base and she failed to even visit the swing states despite desperate calls from campaign staff in those states that Trump was gaining strength. Hillary was not a great campaigner and she was not inspirational which contributed to her loss in the end. Meanwhile, Warren is an exciting candidate that is rallying big crowds and growing support. People don’t even seem to be thinking about her being the first woman president, many seem just to be thinking about having a smart, conscientious, Progressive leader taking over the WH. I think the nom is Warren’s to chase and Biden’s to fumble away. » Posted By AdLib On August 20, 2019 @ 3:17 pm Who knows Biden as a politician better than Obama? And he doesn’t have confidence in Biden? I just posted above that in this very month, before the 2008 election, Hillary was leading Obama by 44% – 24%, a lead of 20%. Biden’s lead over Warren is somewhere between 11% – 15% and his support is stuck at around 29%. Hillary had a lot more going for her in 2008 than Biden does now. And his campaign, like Trump’s though not using immigration, is based on fear. And that’s awful. Biden’s only platform is, “If you don’t vote for me, Trump will win and destroy what’s left of America! You better vote for me even if you don’t like me! Or Trump will get you!!!” Just a matter of time until Jill Biden warns of caravans of Trumps coming to invade us and only Joe can stop them! » Posted By AdLib On August 20, 2019 @ 1:47 pm Biden leads in the August before election year…as Hillary did…just not by as much: "Sen. Hillary Clinton retains her position at the front of the pack, with 44%, nearly double the 24% garnered by the next-closest candidate, Sen. Barack Obama."https://t.co/k2iInthIdC — PlanetPOV.com (@PlanetPOV) August 20, 2019 » Posted By AdLib On August 20, 2019 @ 1:40 pm Sad. You claim RCP proves you right and instead it proves your wrong. When you claim you used RCP numbers as a “study” you made, I assume you expected to be taken seriously but when those same numbers actually prove that your “study” is false, you suddenly disparage the numbers “cherry picking”. Got it. It’s also called “desperate”. As for the CNN poll, you again fail to link to it or list its actual numbers because they prove you wrong again (you don’t seem to comprehend what “compared to” means). The numbers from CNN’s poll: Biden: 29% Warren: 14% https://www.cnn.com/2019/08/20/politics/cnn-poll-democrats-2020-biden-rebound/index.html See how an honest person presents facts even when they aren’t what they’d prefer? Since math seems to be a bit of a challenge for you, let me simplify more so maybe even you can grasp this: Biden at 29% now < Biden at 31% before
So the poll you cling to, to support your misguided proposition shows Biden down 2% since the last week's poll.
Biden has no momentum and even in this poll that you represent as favorable to him, he has dropped.
Yes, it also shows Warren at 14%. That could be accurate but it is an outlier with her support in nearly all of the recent polls so I will look to see if subsequent polls support it or undercut that number as an outlier.
Warren had over 12,000 people attend her rally yesterday in MN. Have we seen Biden have anywhere near that turnout at any of his rallies? Who really has momentum and inspires voters? That person will win the primary and it seems clear at this point that's not Biden...and no amount of misrepresentations and contorting numbers and poll results will change that.
» Posted By AdLib On August 20, 2019 @ 12:28 pm It’s so easy to refute your “arguments”. All one has to do is look at the numbers you claim support you and they inevitably prove you’re incorrect. Here are the RCP numbers you incorrectly claim show Biden gaining over the past month (click it to enlarge): Using the last month’s polls, from 7/14 to 8/15, as appear above: a. Biden’s lead over Warren shrunk from 18% to 11%. b. Biden’s 32% support decreased to 31% support. c. Warren’s 14% support increased to 20% support. Click the dates above to see these true poll numbers at the polling company sites. Maybe in the future, the momentum will change to favor Biden and if it does, I’d have no trouble being honest and admitting that even if it’s not what I’d prefer. But that’s me… » Posted By AdLib On August 19, 2019 @ 10:37 pm Saying “trends are fleeting” is demonstrating a misunderstanding of what a trend is. Trends are by definition, not fleeting. They are a summary of performance over a meaningful period of time. You tried to refer to Harris’ brief bump after the first debate as a trend, that is not what a trend is. I posted a documented trend over the past 4 months of Warren’s steady gain and Biden’s flat numbers. If you don’t like that trend, that’s perfectly fine. If it was the other way around and the trend favored Biden, I might not like it as much. However, it doesn’t show a respect for numbers though to try to dismiss the concept of trends simply because they don’t favor your preferred candidate. So far, 2020 is following the same pattern as 2008. The well known, long time establishment Dem starts out in the beginning of the primary with a big lead that flattens and recedes as a more unconventional candidate gains momentum and eventually overtakes them and wins the nomination and the General Election. Understanding trends helps one extrapolate what is more or less likely in the future. Disputing that trends have any meaning is choosing to put on blinders to avoid seeing what one may not wish to see. » Posted By AdLib On August 17, 2019 @ 9:39 pm Again, the numbers and trends don’t support your hope that Warren won’t beat Biden or Trump. Warren Chips Away at Biden’s Strength as The One Who Beats Trump In a new Economist/YouGov poll, 65% of Democratic voters said Biden would “probably beat Donald Trump” — unchanged from June. But the number saying the same thing about Warren jumped 14 points since then, to 57%, the highest of any other candidate. In the overall race, Biden led Warren by just 1 point among Democrats in a match-up with Trump. That’s after being 16 points ahead of her in June, according to the poll. Like the others, these are national polls that include polling of voters in the Rust Belt. Warren beats Trump in the latest poll in MI, 44% – 38% https://climatenexus.org/wp-content/uploads/Michigan-Poll-Toplines-PR1916.pdf Warren is tied with Trump in WI at 41% – 41% which leaves 18% of the vote to be decided and history proves that the majority of undecided goes to the challenger instead of the incumbent (the majority of voters who end up voting for the incumbent, who they know best, do so from the start). http://firehousestrategies.com/june-2020-survey/ » Posted By AdLib On August 17, 2019 @ 2:59 pm You share my interest in numbers so there’s this: Iowa corn poll may signal trouble for Joe Biden. ‘Ear this, America: A uniquely unscientific poll of Iowa voters suggests Joe Biden is struggling to maintain his front-runner status in the Democratic presidential primary race. Just 24% of Iowa State Fair goers “voted” for Biden by dropping a kernel of corn in his jar in a fair display designed to predict the winner of the nominating contest. The vice president out-husked his closest rival, Pete Buttigieg, who drew 16% in the Cast Your Kernel contest. Sen. Elizabeth Warren was right behind with 15% and Sen. Kamala Harris took 11%. For your proposition to be validated, Biden should be rising in the polls or at the very least, Warren shouldn’t be gaining on him. But the reverse is true. The trend is that Biden is declining in popularity and Warren is rising. It is logical to extrapolate that trend and if it continues, Biden will swap the lead with Warren. It’s the trend that tells the story, we can offer a variety of propositions that support our chosen candidate winning but the most accurate indicator is the trend over time. And over the past 4 months, Biden has been stagnant at best and Warren has been steadily rising. » Posted By AdLib On August 12, 2019 @ 5:07 pm Niemand, as may be apparent, I don’t mince words when it comes to minimizing or rationalizing away bigotry. I also don’t subscribe to or even understand the victim mentality that so many conservatives seem to rely on. No one ever expressed in any way that you would be treated any differently than any other member when it comes to participating here. Everyone is welcome to join and post at The Planet no matter their political perspective as long as they don’t violate our Terms of Use which are intended to prevent conversations from descending into base insults and mudslinging. That isn’t to say members aren’t allowed to strongly dispute others’ positions or assertions. My impression of your comment was that you were trying to dispute the label of bigotry for those who act in a bigoted way. There is a simpler solution. If people don’t want to be described as bigoted, they shouldn’t support bigotry. I’m not a believer in doublespeak or “alternative facts”. I don’t believe in the practice of insisting that a bigot should be allowed to be bigoted without having to be described as a bigot. It is a tactic to call the accurate description of something that reflects badly on people one is sympathetic with as demonization. But truth is truth. The term “bigot” is not an arbitrary pejorative but is a description of the character of the views and/or actions of people. I understand why, for instance, Trump rails so furiously about being assessed as a racist as a result of his racist words and actions but has hurt feelings about being accurately described as such. However, to refer to him in the reverse or to obscure the truth bout his racism would be dishonest. What about the feelings of those who are assaulted by angry bigotry? Aren’t their feelings more deserving of recognition than those of the people assaulting them? Because they’re upset at being identified accurately for their actions? What I found objectionable in your comment was that you appeared to be saying that people who express bigotry should have their reasons for being bigoted understood as being reasonable and be absolved of being referred to as bigots. From my perspective, those who tolerate and rationalize prejudice, support prejudice. Yes, we can objectively understand the insecurity and fear that drives white people into striking out at or demonizing non-white people who they see as “taking over” the white-dominated society they feel entitled to. That doesn’t make it okay. It is an emotional flaw in people to think that they are justified in seeing any other person as inferior or deserving of denigration or demonization because they have a different skin color or nationality and are new to their community. The UK is very provincial as are some Brits. As in the US, there is a long history of provincialism leading to prejudice against new immigrants. It should never be validated that existing residents of a nation are justified in being hostile and prejudiced towards new residents solely because they have a different skin color or nationality. Instead of yearning to have their prejudices understood and legitimized, which the majority of moral people will never do, people who have descended into resentment of all people of different races and/or nationalities should work to accept the world they now live in that is growing more multicultural. They can’t go back in time, they can’t escape into an alternative dimension where all of “the others” have disappeared from their country. They are their fellow citizens and the only constructive path is to accept them as such. » Posted By AdLib On August 12, 2019 @ 4:40 pm This analysis seems insightful, both accepting your proposition that Trump was not found by Mueller to be guilty of conspiring with the Russians…but he wasn’t seen as innocent either: Here’s the key point: If there wasn’t collusion on the hacking, it sure wasn’t for lack of trying. Indeed, the Mueller report makes clear that Trump personally ordered an attempt to obtain Hillary Clinton’s emails; and people associated with the campaign pursued this believing they were dealing with Russian hackers. Trump also personally engaged in discussions about coordinating public-relations strategy around WikiLeaks releases of hacked emails. At least one person associated with the campaign was in touch directly with the Guccifer 2.0 persona—which is to say with Russian military intelligence. And Donald Trump Jr. was directly in touch with WikiLeaks—from whom he obtained a password to a hacked database. There are reasons none of these incidents amount to crimes—good reasons, in my view, in most cases, viable judgment calls in others. But the picture it all paints of the president’s conduct is anything but exonerating. Just because someone proves to be too incompetent to succeed in a crime, it doesn’t mean he didn’t have criminal intent. As for your perspective that a man proven to have told over 12,000 lies since taking office, should be believed that he was only joking when he called for Russia to find Hillary’s emails: The GRU, like many Trump supporters, took Trump seriously, but not literally. “Within approximately five hours of Trump’s announcement,” Mueller writes, “GRU officers targeted for the first time Clinton’s personal office.” In other words, the GRU appears to have responded to Trump’s call for Russia to release a set of Clinton’s emails the Russians likely never hacked by launching a new wave of attacks aimed at other emails. Trump has since insisted that he was joking in that speech. But the public comments mirrored private orders. After the speech, “Trump asked individuals affiliated with his Campaign to find the deleted Clinton emails,” the report states. “Michael Flynn … recalled that Trump made this request repeatedly, and Flynn subsequently contacted multiple people in an effort to obtain the emails.” https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/04/ben-wittes-five-conclusions-mueller-report/588259/ It’s not a joke when the Russians obey Trump’s request any more than it’s a joke when racist white gunmen go out to murder people of color who Trump declares to be their enemies. Trump incited Russian attacks on our election with his “joke”. He also seriously pursued what you claim he was only joking about. The facts and timing are clear. » Posted By AdLib On August 12, 2019 @ 1:35 pm I think the word you are veering around is “bigotry” which encompasses racism and the hatred of others who may be white but are from Eastern Europe or other countries that are seen as “the other” by white nationalists in the UK, US or other white majority countries. Antisemitism is often white people being bigoted towards other white people as is prejudice by white Christians against white Muslims. It is disappointing that so many “regular people” are disturbed by “unsolicited” changing demographics (whatever “unsolicited” means) so please don’t tell them that in the world, white people have been minorities for very long time (there’s this little country called China these “normal people” shouldn’t be told about or they may jump right out of their white skin). Just a suggestion, white people really shouldn’t suggest that they are the best authorities to determine what racism is. » Posted By AdLib On August 11, 2019 @ 8:03 pm I don’t see a cause for concern here. The article explains that Warren underperforms against Biden with white working class men. No surprise, these are moderate white men and they will not be the demographic that goes strong for Dems or will make the difference in their winning in 2020. Trump will at worst split this demo but more likely will win it as he did in 2016. But Hillary didn’t lose in 2016 because she’s didn’t win the white male working class vote that Dems don’t win, it was because not enough non-white voters came out in three swing states (MA wasn’t a factor). Would Warren lose MA with a 60% total? Of course not so I think reading too much into it would be a mistake. Dems need to drive greater turnout with women and non-white voters in Swing states. That should cause worry about Biden, not Warren. » Posted By AdLib On August 11, 2019 @ 1:38 pm Jake, I appreciate your frustration when you see someone who pops in here and appears to be a Russian troll. When you see this and we haven’t responded yet, please use the Contact Us link to let us know and we will review it to take action as required. If we let them create havoc here by allowing members to engage in hostile exchanges that violate our TOU, they win in their sabotage and we lose. Thanks for understanding and your support on this. » Posted By AdLib On August 11, 2019 @ 11:43 am I understand, I just was making the point because I’ve been seeing an ongoing push for Biden in the MSM and what I saw as an overreaction to his speech which many pundits used to claim other candidates should stop criticizing him and that he is the Dems’ best hope. I think this is the same kind of push the moderate/establishment media types have pushed only on Dems (remember how they swooned over Trump?) to go with the moderate/establishment candidate who is “entitled” to the nom. As you say, I too think Biden’s age is a deficit that will grow to be a bigger and bigger issue as the campaign goes on. I can only imagine the dirty tricks Trump and the Russians will pull on Biden to use his senior moment gaffes as proof that he has Alzheimer’s, is senile, is going to have a stroke or heart attack, etc. Remember how they tried to portray Hillary is sickly, weak and hiding serious physical ailments? No way they don’t do that times ten to Biden. If Warren wins, they’ll do it to her too but Biden is far more vulnerable as each new gaffe will be pounced on by Russian bots on Twitter as proof that Biden has lost it and is a dottering old man. Trump is already attacking Biden this way now, no question that will be the main game plan against him if he won the nom. Warren though has the tenacity, mental acuity and energy to easily dispute that portrayal, as would any of the other candidates (Bernie would be vulnerable too, though I don’t think he’ll win, but his tenacity would help as a defense too). I do think other candidates could be effective too, being more exciting to bring out voters and offer a real and fresh vision of where they want to take the country. Of the top candidates though, I think Biden is the least inspirational and the GOTV could rival Hillary’s in the end which could be very worrisome. Whoever it is though, I’m voting for and supporting the Dem nom 110%! » Posted By AdLib On August 11, 2019 @ 12:14 am I’m seeing that issue in every direction. A lot of Biden support on MSNBC for instance with pundits whining against any of the other candidates saying anything critical of Biden. They are saying, “”It’s destructive, a circular firing squad for Dems to criticize Biden. Can’t we just agree on not bringing up any of Biden’s faults and letting him win the nomination? I mean, Trump certainly won’t do that if Biden is the nominee so whats the benefit of diffusing any issues in the primary so they won’t be new ‘scandals in the General Election?” They refer to Dem candidates who question anything about Biden as attacking Obama or damaging Dems’ chances in 2020. It’s a primary! That’s how it works! The front runner is the one in most of the crossfire because they’re the front runner. I guarantee, when Biden drops down and is no longer the front runner, the criticisms will wind down. I hope that makes the pro-Biden pundits happier. As we’ve discussed, many of those blindly committed to Biden show no interest in considering how every establishment Dem moderate in the past 35 years has lost. Just like Biden, most led strongly in the early polls. But the lack of curiosity in how those early polls ended up being irrelevant and the candidate failed, allowing the Repub to win the next term in the WH, is disappointing. I have seen many touting as if it was a badge of honor, that most Dems’ top issue is electing a candidate who can beat Trump. That is a self-deception as results have proven. Hillary was polling well ahead of Trump in many periods during the election and we all know who won. If Biden was to win and only supported incremental change on healthcare, corporate power, economic inequality, etc., he will be a one-termer anyway and who knows, we might end up with President Ivanka next! Biden would be 81 years old if he was running for re-election in 2024 and considering the many senior moments he’s having now, on top of being an uninspiring politician with little improvement to show on issues after 4 years, the Repubs would be favored to return to the WH and finish the job on destroying our democracy in 2024. Not many Biden supporters talk about what would happen in 2024 if Biden won in 2020 but it is not a pretty picture. And that’s the hole you dig for yourself when you vote based on who could win as opposed to who would be the best and most popular president. » Posted By AdLib On August 10, 2019 @ 11:57 pm I don’t understand why you still think it is a positive for you to invent false and insulting accusations against others whose opinions you disagree with. It only further reflects on your own credibility by repeatedly making false attributions against people who are merely trying to express their personal opinions as you do. It comes off as an easier and disingenuous alternative to honestly debating someone on what they actually said and being able to honestly make your case. Here is a link to our Terms of Use and I would recommend that you read it to understand how we strongly believe in free expression here but we do not support members being frequently provocative towards others and disruptive simply because they disagree with another member’s opinion. Disagreements and debates here are absolutely fine but making up false accusations against others to discredit them and their opinion is not a display of good faith or intellectual honesty. » Posted By AdLib On August 10, 2019 @ 11:26 pm Some people never learn from their mistakes, they just keep trying to hammer that square peg into the round hole because they like square pegs the best. No election punched me in the gut more than 2016, I was never so shaken or angry. I voted for Hillary but I was resentful all during the primary because it was clear that the Establishment Dems had already anointed her and did all they could to force their pick on Dems and the country. Of course, Hillary would have been incredibly better than Trump, that should go without saying. But it was the hubris and elitist superiority mentality that Establishment Dems used to justify their choosing the Dem nominee for us (don’t forget, they had already lined up a huge number of Superdelegates committed to her before the race even began, any challenger would have faced a huge deficit in delegates and be a likely loser to her because of that alone so why challenge her?). It is the same definition of insanity this time around. Despite knowing the fact that moderate, establishment Dems have lost EVERY presidential election for the past 35 years including Hillary vs. Trump, too many people are still insistent that they know best that a Hillary/Biden political type is surely the best candidate to win for Dems. They say that only Biden can win white men in red and purple states and that’s how Dems will need to win. Nope. Chasing after the demographic that votes for Trump is not what won The House and a record election win for Dems in 2018 nor why Hillary lost in 2016. But why look at the most recent election and the way Dems won then when we can wish instead? There is absolutely no evidence, aside from these very early polls, that supports running Biden instead of a sharper, more enthusiastic candidate. And the factor not reflected in today’s polls is how quickly and easily Biden can shoot himself in the foot and lose support. Some may point to his numbers rebounding from his poor performance in the first debate but the fact that one debate performance can tank him so badly is a warning about how weak his support truly is and how he can damage himself badly overnight. Biden has more baggage than Hillary did and as opposed to Hillary, Biden has lost his sharpness. He slurs his words sometimes, as I demonstrated, he makes major mistakes when he speaks, having him as the nom would be like carrying an unexploded mine in your car, if you hit a bump, it could all blow up. But I understand, some people are scared and want what they think is the “safe” candidate. Others are so locked into their mindsets, they just won’t accept that the establishment moderate that they want to be the nom, is the riskier pick in an election we can’t afford to risk. I am looking forward to the primary narrowing down to just a few candidates so there can be a real head to head comparison that I think will show Biden as the weaker candidate. Also, by then, I will have had to post “The Day in Biden’s Gaffes” timeline that will be many pages long and have Dems rolling their eyes on a regular basis. If my portrayal of Biden is correct, he won’t win the primary (unless the Dem Establishment steps in) because he will founder on his own. Confusion, gaffes, refusing to apologize for bad decisions in the past and a long track record as you describe of being on the wrong side of Dem issues. As I mentioned today in another comment, Biden has 28% in IA (Warren is only 9% behind him with big momentum) which means 72% of Dems who have to know him well by now, are voting against him. As the field narrows, where will those votes go? Most are likely to go to a challenger to Biden and that’s a lot of votes for challengers like Warren to rack up. So, as in 2008, nothing you can do about those who insist Biden will win because he has a lead now, just like they did when Hillary had a 20% lead over Obama. He may squeak it out in the end but I don’t think he will. 2020 is similar to 2008. The longtime establishment moderate starts as the favorite against the upstart challenger who is more Progressive, charismatic and exciting to the base and would be the first of their kind to become President. I remember how 2008 turned out, I wouldn’t be surprised for 2020 to turn out to have a similar result. » Posted By AdLib On August 8, 2019 @ 10:07 pmComments Posted By AdLib
and would certainly be preferable to
Trump. But so would your average
malaria-carrying mosquito make a better president than Trump.
/ˈˌself dəˈlo͞oZHən/
noun
noun: self-delusion; plural noun: self-delusions
«« Back To Stats Page
Home Stats
