2020 US presidential election

Freeza wrote:

Myesyats wrote:No witnesses, just hearsay. Former staff members have not found any pattern of sexual misconduct by Biden.

I think it will not hurt Joe unless more women step forward.

Hasnt Trump been accused by 25 women? lol

So Biden needs 17 more.

And sexual misconduct has been established. The report said no pattern was found aside from unwanted touching and kissing

Here was the original report until they altered it and deleted any signs of misconduct by Biden:


___

It's clear from anyone who's seen Biden act with women that he's deeply problematic. His video about consent alone should've been disqualifying, but apparently not in the US.

If Biden wins that's 4 out of the last 6 US presidents who's misused their power for sexual reasons.

What do you do then? If you replace Biden now, Trump will win surely

That isn't being petty its pointing out a basic fallacy.

What do you present as your alternative to influencing society? I will listen of course.

Myesyats wrote:

Freeza wrote:

Myesyats wrote:No witnesses, just hearsay. Former staff members have not found any pattern of sexual misconduct by Biden.

I think it will not hurt Joe unless more women step forward.

Hasnt Trump been accused by 25 women? lol

So Biden needs 17 more.

And sexual misconduct has been established. The report said no pattern was found aside from unwanted touching and kissing

Here was the original report until they altered it and deleted any signs of misconduct by Biden:


___

It's clear from anyone who's seen Biden act with women that he's deeply problematic. His video about consent alone should've been disqualifying, but apparently not in the US.

If Biden wins that's 4 out of the last 6 US presidents who's misused their power for sexual reasons.

What do you do then? If you replace Biden now, Trump will win surely

It's a hard choice. The democrats fucked the process up. They all gathered behind a deeply troubled candidate, because there weren't better conservative dems available to back.

I'm happy Biden was the choice over Buttigieg. I'd rather have whatever Biden is over Buttigieg who seems like a complete sociopath who'd do anything to get power.

sportsczy wrote:

rincon wrote:

Arquitecto wrote:


Basically this.

Ever since I jumped into enterprise post University I realised how naive most idealisms are.

Rational-agents and Economists won't see it anywhere near the way the average-being does.

Trump has turned out disappointing for the most part but business people who did not capitalise on his regime will regret not doing so ahead.

I know I did the former and I am failing to see how Biden will be any better.

There is nothing more rational here. It just shifting your priorities from the well-being of society to your financial well-being. We shouldn't disguise political leaning with rationality.

That's one and the same in the US particularly, and in other countries to varying degrees.  There is no social safety net here.  You run out of money and you're on the street within weeks.

The other rational (and it's 100% true) is that you amass wealth and power...  and then you can institute social change.  Without power, you're just flapping your gums.  Lastly, most of these ideological doctrines are absolute nonsense imo.  This isn't the world of Candide.

"Rational" to me means circumstances as they exist... not some fairy tale that has no basis in reality.

What fairy tale? you still aren't arguing for increased rationality, you are arguing for what you perceive as pragmatism. And pragmatism based on your own ideology at that. Voting for Trump is absolutely not a sign of acting more rationally. Just as with everything else in politics, it's acting with what you perceive to be more beneficial to your ideals. Which in this case it's increasing your personal wealth at the cost of whatever else.

Why would a conservative think Biden would be bad for their financial interests? he's not gonna increase your taxes lol.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2020/04/joe-biden-names-sex-creep-and-sex-creep-enabler-chris-dodd-to-vp-team.html

Sounds like a great hire tbh

Voting for Trump (which I'm not) is not about believing to increase your wealth above all else. That's a dismissive generalization that isn't based on fact. His platform focuses on 3 things:

- America First (1 of 2) - Putting the interest of American citizens above all else.
- America First (2 of 2) - Isolation and protection against dilution that is, in his opinion detrimental to the well being of citizens. This is 100% bs imo. The country was built on immigration and free trade.
- Balanced Trade - In one word, reciprocity. Same conditions and taxes must apply to US goods being sold with our trade partners and vice versa. If not, the US will impose tariffs to even out the playing field. I agree with this one 100%.
- Balanced International Investment - UN, WTO, NATO, etc. are predominantly funded by the United States. They would argue that we're just paying our fair share based on per capita. That's a false argument. We only get 1 vote. There is no popular vote or even weighted vote to choose leaders in these institutions. We should only pay the amount commensurate to our representation... which is again, 1 vote. I also agree with this 100%.

My biggest problem with him aren't necessarily his policies. I take issue with his political methods, his narcissism, his disregard for human impact, etc. Basically, he's an enormous dick... which makes it hard to give him credit even when he deserves some.

Trump won on the back of working class votes, not due to upper middle class who saw voting for Trump as economically advantageous. Many who fall high on the wealth scale rejected Trump. In fact in recent elections those who favored republicans are rejecting them.

Sports and Arq are living on outdated views of Republicans and Democrats. Thinking that Warren and Sanders are leading the Dems, while in reality it is more of the party of Micheal Bloomberg.

Democrats are increasingly becoming the party of the rich, and this trend will undoubtedly continue.

This is so fucking funny. Worth watching the whole thing but even just the first segment is devastating. pic.twitter.com/mNEu0Hf1pU

— Eoin Higgins (@EoinHiggins_) January 30, 2020

There was a time when the media somewhat held the powerful accountable now it is fully intended to serve them.

Joe Biden gives off major Brett Kavanaugh energy

No one should be surprised when frat bros plagiarises stuff

Blue wrote:Trump won on the back of working class votes, not due to upper middle class who saw voting for Trump as economically advantageous. Many who fall high on the wealth scale rejected Trump. In fact in recent elections those who favored republicans are rejecting them.

Sports and Arq are living on outdated views of Republicans and Democrats. Thinking that Warren and Sanders are leading the Dems, while in reality it is more of the party of Micheal Bloomberg.

Democrats are increasingly becoming the party of the rich, and this trend will undoubtedly continue.

There is no commentary from me on Republicans v Democrats, Blue. Nor do I side with one or another as I am not as closely aware to these details to predictions as you are.


So that brings me to this question, why are Democrats more the party of the rich increasingly?

I'm not saying "Rich" v "Poor"...  I'm saying people in Financial Services and SMB entrepreneurs (i.e. people who own small business; not tech and/or VC-backed startups).  Very different.

You're trying to appeal to non-coastal voters that are moderate in specific categories.  That's who is going to win the election for one side or another.  Trump is appealing to their greed and dislike for the Washington establishment.  The Dems aren't appealing to anything...  they need to come up with some kind of platform that targets these people other than emotions towards Trump only. At least find a different emotional angle if you can't come up with policy.

Freeza wrote:Joe Biden gives off major Brett Kavanaugh energy

No one should be surprised when frat bros plagiarises stuff

To you or to Americans?

Because to the American people who have grown in time with Joe, he's the farthest thing from Brett Kavanaugh as you can get.

The Joe Biden of 15 years ago was absolutely great.  He was one of the few politicians I enjoyed listening to.... very knowledgeable, articulate and respectful.  Foreign serves or relation committee as I recall.

It's a shame what he is today and people only see this.

Not to take anything away from the women in question...  but you can't apply the social norms of today to 30 years ago.  99% of men back then (including me) have committed sexual harassment under current standards.

Women didn't seem to mind it either.  It used to be called flirting.

sportsczy wrote:The Joe Biden of 15 years ago was absolutely great.  He was one of the few politicians I enjoyed listening to.... very knowledgeable, articulate and respectful.  Foreign serves or relation committee as I recall.

It's a shame what he is today and people only see this.

Not to take anything away from the women in question...  but you can't apply the social norms of today to 30 years ago.  99% of men back then (including me) have committed sexual harassment under current standards.

Women didn't seem to mind it either.  It used to be called flirting.

These days even whistling is harrasment

sportsczy wrote:The Joe Biden of 15 years ago was absolutely great.  He was one of the few politicians I enjoyed listening to.... very knowledgeable, articulate and respectful.  Foreign serves or relation committee as I recall.

It's a shame what he is today and people only see this.

Not to take anything away from the women in question...  but you can't apply the social norms of today to 30 years ago.  99% of men back then (including me) have committed sexual harassment under current standards.

Women didn't seem to mind it either.  It used to be called flirting.

Its still called flirting if you are considered attractive...thing is, Biden in his old age isnt that anymore.

sportsczy wrote:Voting for Trump (which I'm not) is not about believing to increase your wealth above all else.  That's a dismissive generalization that isn't based on fact.  His platform focuses on 3 things:

-  America First (1 of 2) - Putting the interest of American citizens above all else.  
-  America First (2 of 2) - Isolation and protection against dilution that is, in his opinion detrimental to the well being of citizens.  This is 100% bs imo.  The country was built on immigration and free trade.
- Balanced Trade - In one word, reciprocity.  Same conditions and taxes must apply to US goods being sold with our trade partners and vice versa.  If not, the US will impose tariffs to even out the playing field.  I agree with this one 100%.
- Balanced International Investment - UN, WTO, NATO, etc. are predominantly funded by the United States.  They would argue that we're just paying our fair share based on per capita.  That's a false argument.  We only get 1 vote.  There is no popular vote or even weighted vote to choose leaders in these institutions.  We should only pay the amount commensurate to our representation... which is again, 1 vote.  I also agree with this 100%.

My biggest problem with him aren't necessarily his policies.  I take issue with his political methods, his narcissism, his disregard for human impact, etc.  Basically, he's an enormous dick... which makes it hard to give him credit even when he deserves some.

I will argue on most of these.

Putting America first is all about putting Americans who vote for him first!

Balance trade for the most part exists today. He consistently ignores the services part of the equation which is generally in favor of US. His trade wars have hurt the US more than the targeted country and the deals he has gotten are essentially the same as was in place with a name change.

International Investment - this hasn’t been the result of other countries asking for it, it has been the richest country in the world offering it. This movement is like his lower taxes, for the rich.

Also I dispute your claim that the majority of wall street support Trump.

El Gunner wrote:

Blue wrote:Trump won on the back of working class votes, not due to upper middle class who saw voting for Trump as economically advantageous. Many who fall high on the wealth scale rejected Trump. In fact in recent elections those who favored republicans are rejecting them.

Sports and Arq are living on outdated views of Republicans and Democrats. Thinking that Warren and Sanders are leading the Dems, while in reality it is more of the party of Micheal Bloomberg.

Democrats are increasingly becoming the party of the rich, and this trend will undoubtedly continue.

Blue im curious where in the US are you from if you dont mind my asking?

Currently living in the Philadelphia area, lived in NYC for a couple of years, West Georgia for a little while too. I was planning on moving to Colorado before the coronavirus halted my plan.

Blue wrote:

El Gunner wrote:

Blue wrote:Trump won on the back of working class votes, not due to upper middle class who saw voting for Trump as economically advantageous. Many who fall high on the wealth scale rejected Trump. In fact in recent elections those who favored republicans are rejecting them.

Sports and Arq are living on outdated views of Republicans and Democrats. Thinking that Warren and Sanders are leading the Dems, while in reality it is more of the party of Micheal Bloomberg.

Democrats are increasingly becoming the party of the rich, and this trend will undoubtedly continue.

Blue im curious where in the US are you from if you dont mind my asking?

Currently living in the Philadelphia area, lived in NYC for a couple of years, West Georgia for a little while too. I was planning on moving to Colorado before the coronavirus halted my plan.

Did you go to west georgia?

@Bill.

Balance Trade - meaning trade deficit with a country.  It's expected up to a level.  VAT, volume restrictions, etc.... those need to go if the US isn't asking the same for products coming in.  End of.  Reciprocity or we'll level the playing field via tariffs.  Completely agree with him here.

International Investment - we offered if after WW2 when nobody else could afford it.  That's no longer valid today.  If we only get 1 vote, then we should only pay our share for 1 vote.  Again, end of.  We can subsidize projects that we like at our leisure.  But US taxpayers shouldn't give a blank check to international organizations.  Again, agree with him 100% here.

The issue was that that, despite having unbalanced agreements on the surface, until roughly the late 90s, we were able to even things out via ancillary benefits. That has eroded. Countries think they can get a free meal ticket from us without having to pay for the food. For example, countries would hire our infrastructure companies to build them roads + airports. Now, that's no longer going to US companies to balance the books.

Apparently the defense I’ve seen of Biden lately is that he’s been vetted by Obama and therefor is obviously not guilty. Obviously a great vetting team.

https://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2017/01/malia-obama-harvey-weinstein-internship/amp

The trade deals that I have seen; Canada, Mexico, Trump and I guess you ignored the services part of the equation. The trade deal is goods and services and it ends up the deficit is the opposite to what he says.

and re International Investment, the US has long proclaimed to be the world leader and that is the price that has been paid. If the majority of the US wants to abandon that position and turn on its long time allies, then I guess it is their right, but I certainly don’t get that impression.

well well well

I honestly thought the Tara Reade thing was over already, dead on arrival with basically none of the accepted outlets willing to give it attention

But a whole month later, this has become serious. The neighbour ends the doubt for me.
This happened, let's face it, it happened. And it's going to be a massive problem for Biden whether we want to acknowledge it or not. The evidence will not become less, it will become bigger, as it alsways does.

How will this end? What do you think?

What I think, honestly, all these past weeks I thought he would, and felt he could, scoot past it with his campaign, with most people, me included, being ready to close one and a half of their eyes about some of Biden's bad stuff in light of what's at stake in November.

But now, honestly, I think the proper thing to happen would be he steps down. If we're honest, he needs to step down.
It's very probably not going to happen, of course, because how, but the fact that it should happen will be a massive problem for Biden in his quest to unite and energize the Democratic base IMO.

It will also put pressure on, and damage, any potential female running mate. Stacy Abrams has already sacrificed her credibility for Biden, wonder whether he will repay her.