2020 US Elections | Biden certified as President | Dems control Congress

Status
Not open for further replies.
hungrywing said:
When your post was just the first sentence I was going to request that you first post your own analysis.

Eeeegh. Second sentence. It's kind of looking like you might not understand even if I did reply.

But what the hell. Long story short, all the ones I know who voted for him are a varying combination of:

1. 'Biden's-not-that-different'
2. They're staunchly 'a baby can't defend itself'
3. Strong 'keep your beliefs to yourself and help people who are in need' types who feel aggrieved by a perceived thirty/forty-year assault on their morals/values.

Second question, none of them try to do any of that. Get a 'Trump supporter' in private and talk to them long enough, they'll agree with you he's immoral. The fact that you brought it up is kind of weird: surely you know that not all 'Trump supporters' are cookie-cutter evangelicals frothing at the mouth? Also, you do know the average Bible-thumper doesn't really know 'their' Bible, right?

AKA put that all together and it's the usual 'I'm not voting for him, I'm voting against the other guy'. Their voting their issues, not for Trump.
Click to expand...
My own analysis:
Their decision to vote for Trump is deeply rooted in various combinations of: their clinging to Cold War era propaganda, politico-religious indoctrination, commitment to a tribalist worldview, emphasis on their own money over the common good, fear of a boogeyman, fear of differentness, racism, and xenophobia.

Summarized: they’re ignorant

As to the reasons given by the ones you know...

1) “Biden is not that different” - then what positives do they see in Trump as the difference maker?

2) “They’re staunchly ‘a baby can’t defend itself’” - part of the politico-religious indoctrination point I made. Beyond that, how do they think a baby/infant/toddler/child provides for itself after it is born? Their placement of money above the common good results in them supporting anti-natalist policy while promoting a pro-natalist stance on abortion.

3) “Keep your beliefs to yourself and help those in need” - only if those beliefs contradict with the ones they have and only if the ones in need meet a certain arbitrary checklist in order to receive said help. Their support of a man that is in direct contrast to this exact point and their inability to see that is telling.

4) The point about squaring his actions and words with their religious beliefs - again, the argument is you saying they’re not ignorant “stupid hicks” and you are defending them by calling them ignorant.
 
Random question sort of. What is considered virtue signalling? I mean, I know the definition, but when is something virtue signalling.

For instance, wearing a T-shirt that says no to racism, is that virtue signalling? Or marching in an abortion march? How about marching in an anti abortion march? Or wearing a shirt that says I love racism?

Which part makes it signalling instead of being virtuous?
 
KirkDuyt said:
Random question sort of. What is considered virtue signalling? I mean, I know the definition, but when is something virtue signalling.

For instance, wearing a T-shirt that says no to racism, is that virtue signalling? Or marching in an abortion march? How about marching in an anti abortion march? Or wearing a shirt that says I love racism?

Which part makes it signalling instead of being virtuous?
Click to expand...
It's when you want to make your stance known more than anything else. But I get what you mean, I mean virtue signalling relates to good moral character so attending a pro racism march or wearing a t shirt won't be classified as moral.
 
KirkDuyt said:
Random question sort of. What is considered virtue signalling? I mean, I know the definition, but when is something virtue signalling.

For instance, wearing a T-shirt that says no to racism, is that virtue signalling? Or marching in an abortion march? How about marching in an anti abortion march? Or wearing a shirt that says I love racism?

Which part makes it signalling instead of being virtuous?
Click to expand...
I assume the fact that you’re signalling it to the world? It’s a stupid phrase though.
 
hungrywing said:
Welp. It's not a simple issue. (also depends on embryology and when/who decides it's a 'fetus' etc)
Click to expand...

That is true, it really isn't. I'm operating solely on the legislation where I live - which I believe is up until week 12. I totally understand others have other views, even if I strongly disagree.
 
KirkDuyt said:
Random question sort of. What is considered virtue signalling? I mean, I know the definition, but when is something virtue signalling.

For instance, wearing a T-shirt that says no to racism, is that virtue signalling? Or marching in an abortion march? How about marching in an anti abortion march? Or wearing a shirt that says I love racism?

Which part makes it signalling instead of being virtuous?
Click to expand...

Virtue signalling is when right-wingers are upset that other people care about things.
 
KirkDuyt said:
Random question sort of. What is considered virtue signalling? I mean, I know the definition, but when is something virtue signalling.

For instance, wearing a T-shirt that says no to racism, is that virtue signalling? Or marching in an abortion march? How about marching in an anti abortion march? Or wearing a shirt that says I love racism?

Which part makes it signalling instead of being virtuous?
Click to expand...
Has anyone ever throw out a claim of virtue signalling and not been a throbbing twat?
 
hungrywing said:
If you read that sentence again, you'll see that it contains the answer to your bolded question. Answer to the second question is too obvious. (Apologies; I don't know your post tendency so I can't tell if you're trying to troll.)
Click to expand...
I guess my reading comprehension is lacking. You find it ironic the other side is not interested. That sounds like you think it's an other side problem as opposed to a general societal problem.

It's a simple yes or no question. Not trolling.

As for my post tendency, it's mostly rubbish one liners and dad jokes.
 
Brwned said:
There's a reason you didn't know he had a speech disorder, and a reason why you chose to focus on the consequences of that speech disorder. It didn't come from a good place. Rather than doubling down on it, in denial of the facts you yourself admit you didn't even have a basic grasp of, why not just step away from the comments and admit you made a mistake?

Joe Biden has a speech disorder. It is an active battle every day to overcome that, and through years of speech therapy he's able to do so most days. It's not "for whatever reason". In moments of weakness he loses that battle. As he gets older he will have more of those moments of weakness. You didn't know he had the speech disorder, nor that he's provided examples of it throughout his lifetime, nor do you even know the basic symptoms of the speech disorder and how they can be managed. Doubling down only makes it worse.
Click to expand...
Well said.
 
.
hungrywing said:
.... Remember, their position is that in their minds, they're speaking for the baby. It's essentially, 'Well, what about the baby? The baby doesn't get to decide.'
Click to expand...

That's not it all. Starting with the RC Church (all male-controlled), it's men who mostly push for this state-control of women's bodies, At root, it's about power and control over women - "you can't choose, we choose for you - dressed up as religious or moral ethics.

If the biological roles were reversed, and it was men who became pregnant, do you think for one second that men would accept rulings from an all-female church and a female-dominated body-politic about what they can and can't do with their bodies? Not bloody likely.
 
Windows were blocked because the rabid ‘poll protesters’ you whipped up were there threatening poll workers you piece of scum.
 
Carolina Red said:
My own analysis:
Their decision to vote for Trump is deeply rooted in various combinations of: their clinging to Cold War era propaganda, politico-religious indoctrination, commitment to a tribalist worldview, emphasis on their own money over the common good, fear of a boogeyman, fear of differentness, racism, and xenophobia.

Summarized: they’re ignorant
Click to expand...

Well the 'lower-intelligence' ones, sure. Absolutely. No questioning that.

How do explain the architect raised right, wouldn't hurt a fly, doesn't care about race, but quietly thinks he just can't vote for the 'liberals' facilitating the beaming of all sorts of sex and murder into his kids' rooms at night and in a bizarre sort of way enabling the hardcore right wing to rise up and radicalize so many people etc.

It gets complicated the more highly educated the person is in the red areas. Higher-educated 'conservatives' - the real conservatives - are seriously conflicted.

As to the reasons given by the ones you know...

1) “Biden is not that different” - then what positives do they see in Trump as the difference maker?
Click to expand...

They mean economically. (AKA the whole 'Biden's for the rich guy, too') You're from SC, aren't you? You've never heard someone say this?

2) “They’re staunchly ‘a baby can’t defend itself’” - part of the politico-religious indoctrination point I made. Beyond that, how do they think a baby/infant/toddler/child provides for itself after it is born? Their placement of money above the common good results in them supporting anti-natalist policy while promoting a pro-natalist stance on abortion.
Click to expand...

That's just your framing of that issue. Nothing wrong with that. They know that argument, too. This is a complex issue that anyone can see all sides of.

3) “Keep your beliefs to yourself and help those in need” - only if those beliefs contradict with the ones they have and only if the ones in need meet a certain arbitrary checklist in order to receive said help. Their support of a man that is in direct contrast to this exact point and their inability to see that is telling.
Click to expand...

Again, they can see that. Also, have you never known people like this? They don't care what color your skin is, they'd give you the shirt off their back if you needed it. There's no arbitrary checklist beyond 'He/She work hard?'

4) The point about squaring his actions and words with their religious beliefs - again, the argument is you saying they’re not ignorant “stupid hicks” and you are defending them by calling them ignorant.
Click to expand...

Sorry, no idea what you're referring to here. Unless you didn't notice the 'average Bible thumper doesn't actually know the Bible' thing was an addendum referring to how what you'd raised could hardly be reflective of an entire spectrum of religion.
 
Last edited:
The Firestarter said:
Anyone else thinking he might start spewing state secrets on twitter in the lame duck period? Aliens! :drool:
Click to expand...

I would think the intelligence agencies have long since learned not to give any important secrets to a moron like Trump.
 
KirkDuyt said:
It was a joke :nervous:

Im not vegist, one of my best friends is a vegan!
Click to expand...
Woops! My bad then buddy :lol: I’m clearly just sensitive.

I am a veggie and partner is a vegan so I find myself in relevant conversations far too often (even though I’m not the one to bring it up) :lol:
 
hungrywing said:
How do explain the architect raised right, wouldn't hurt a fly, doesn't care about race, but quietly thinks he just can't vote for the 'liberals' facilitating the beaming of all sorts of sex and murder into his kids' rooms at night and in a bizarre sort of way enabling the hardcore right wing to
Click to expand...
I covered that in the “it’s a combination of...” I didn’t say it was all or nothing, it’s a checklist that all will fall under. Look at it again, and you’ll see the ones applying to Mr. Architect.
hungrywing said:
They mean economically. (AKA the whole 'Biden's for the rich guy, too') You're from SC, aren't you? You've never heard someone say this?
Click to expand...
Yes, right along with “Biden is a socialist”. They need to make up their mind - is he harmless and therefore no different than Trump, or is he trying to destroy capitalism?
hungrywing said:
That's just your framing of that issue. Nothing wrong with that. They know that argument, too. This is a complex issue that anyone can see all sides of.
Click to expand...
No, that’s literally how they’re convinced on the issue by the combination of politics with religious teachings. They ignore all of the “care for the poor” and only worry about making sure babies are born.
hungrywing said:
Again, they can see that. Also, have you never known people like this? They don't care what color your skin is, they'd give you the shirt off their back if you needed it. There's no arbitrary checklist beyond 'He/She work hard?'
Click to expand...
Again - the checklist isn’t “all or nothing”. You’re making an argument I didn’t make.
hungrywing said:
Sorry, no idea what you're referring to here. Unless you didn't notice the 'average Bible thumper doesn't actually know the Bible' thing was an addendum referring to how what you'd raised could hardly be reflective of an entire spectrum of religion.
Click to expand...
They are ignorant to the teachings of their faith. They support a man who is the direct antithesis of it. They support economic policies that fly in the face of the words of Jesus himself. Yet they seat themselves on a moral high ground because they believe in ending abortions. They’re ignorant.
 
Berbasbullet said:
Woops! My bad then buddy :lol: I’m clearly just sensitive.

I am a veggie and partner is a vegan so I find myself in relevant conversations far too often (even though I’m not the one to bring it up) :lol:
Click to expand...
No worries, internet and joking dont always makes :D
 
This Philly city commisioner doesn't seem to know answers to any question.
 
Philly commissioner refusing to commit on a time for next update.

Could be a while yet lad..
 
The Firestarter said:
Anyone else thinking he might start spewing state secrets on twitter in the lame duck period? Aliens! :drool:
Click to expand...
Wonder how they'll handle all that. Can you trust the guy not, either wilfully or accidentally, sharing confidential information or state secrets? I think he actually already did it when he shared some satelite photos of Iran a couple of years ago. I also remember reading claims that the CIA and/or Pentagon were extremely careful when it came to what they presented to him, they didn't trust him being able to keep his mouth shut.
 
SirAF said:
That is true, it really isn't. I'm operating solely on the legislation where I live - which I believe is up until week 12. I totally understand others have other views, even if I strongly disagree.
Click to expand...

Yep.

GlastonSpur said:
That's not it all. Starting with the RC Church (all male-controlled), it's men who mostly push for this state-control of women's bodies, At root, it's about power and control over women - "you can't choose, we choose for you - dressed up as religious or moral ethics.

If the biological roles were reversed, and it was men who became pregnant, do you think for one second that men would accept rulings from an all-female church and a female-dominated body-politic about what they can and can't do with their bodies? Not bloody likely.
Click to expand...

I can't even. If you go back and read and you'll see Carolina was asking about my acquaintances specifically. Roughly half of whom happen to be female by virtue of the laws of physics laid out by great men such as Newton and Maxwell. Goddam patriarchs.

Depending on the circumstances, the situation you laid out could be the case. Just remember that doesn't mean that's the only case that could possibly exist.

KirkDuyt said:
I guess my reading comprehension is lacking. You find it ironic the other side is not interested. That sounds like you think it's an other side problem as opposed to a general societal problem.

It's a simple yes or no question. Not trolling.

As for my post tendency, it's mostly rubbish one liners and dad jokes.
Click to expand...

Yeah, for me it's ironic that the 'haha dumb hicks' comments very often come from those conditioned to engage in the same polarized behavior and making no effort to really look at the composition of 'Trump voters'. Walk a mile in another man's shoes and all that. Plus, statistically speaking, some of those people on the other side are going to be 'as smart as' or even 'smarter than' oneself.

To answer the no-trolling-is-Donald-Trump-using-polarizing-rhetoric question: of course, yes. (You gotta admit, your question was such a softball that it looks like a trolling attempt.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.