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

Status
Not open for further replies.
Also these kinds of arguments are usually flawed. Someone may oppose a bill because there's an amendment slipped in that's disagreeable, or because of a small aspect that they're not happy with but it doesn't mean they oppose the reason for the bill. You could have a bill that looks to protect abortion rejected by a progressive because they support the aim of the bill absolutely but there's an amendment in there that says that the mother is entitled to less care/rights than they think is fair. That then gets packaged as 'ThiS PeRsON SaYs ThEYrE AgAinSt AbORtIoN BuT YeT VotEd to MaKE It iLleGal' without anyone putting any actual thought into it. Too many people taking things at face value, black and white, simplistic and then construct narratives around some kind of technicality and they offer nothing to the debate.

The question should just be 'Kamala, can you explain what made you vote against this bill at the time?'

It's not enough to say the right things when you entire career is doing the opposite.
 
It's not enough to say the right things when you entire career is doing the opposite.

It's also not enough to jump to conclusions, when you can just ask questions that either prove your narrative, or dispel it.

I'm also not making any comment on Kamala's career, I don't know enough about it. I'm just commenting on the fallacy of 'this person said X but because they voted against this bill that must be wrong'. That's incredibly simplistic and not really a very intelligent thing to say without delving deeper into it and unfortunately a lot of politics these days is framed around this piss poor kind of positioning.
 
It's also not enough to jump to conclusions, when you can just ask questions that either prove your narrative, or dispel it.

I'm also not making any comment on Kamala's career, I don't know enough about it. I'm just commenting on the fallacy of 'this person said X but because they voted against this bill that must be wrong'.

It's not jumping to conclusions if her entire career has been about punishing disadvantaged people for her own gain. Its painstakingly realizing this is who she is and always has been.
 
It's not jumping to conclusions if her entire career has been about punishing disadvantaged people for her own gain. Its painstakingly realizing this is who she is and always has been.

You're commenting on something that I'm not talking about. Without knowing a lot about her career, I believe that I agree with what you're saying, but it's not relevant to the post I made.
 
D-M7IC9X4AAeZuA.jpg:large
 
Saw this earlier. Wish they had tried some colours to make it clearer but I guess the upshot is Biden took a massive hit, it mostly went ot Kamala, and Warren a little bit, and Bernie has the most loyal base who will support him if he shoots a man on 5th Avenue ;)
 
You talking about Ben Cohen?

He’s been supporting Bernie for about 40 years now.

As I said, taking time to explain this clearly, the problem is with him being on his committee. To use a twitter phrase - not a good look.


fecking idiotic that we have to denigrate a good pledge because Sanders didn't say it because obviously anyone who is not Sanders can't mean anything they say.
jc fishy. My first post wasn't even supposed to be "denigrating". I had a geunine qs about it, which you responded to like a man personally attacked.

And if this was about some Bernie worship I wouldn't have spent the next few posts forcefully arguing that Bernie is doing things wrong...????
There is an actual conflict on interest with Bernie campaign .

And yes I hate Warren's proposal so much that..

props to her for calling out a common bipartisan practice.

I had a qs about the part of the proposal the tweet highlighted, and I still don't have a satisfactory answer. Just like I don't have one with the Ben&Jerry thing.
 
As I said, taking time to explain this clearly, the problem is with him being on his committee. To use a twitter phrase - not a good look.
Going back to what brought this up, now you see why I was alluding to how Bernie could have made the same declaration as Warren did. He’s got wealthy supporters too.
 
Gillibrand was just awkward. Would just butt in and say nothing of substance for the most part
I liked what she said about corruption and Donors, and about all these ideas will not mean much until there is clean politics. Only her and Elizabeth Warren as mentioned the words Corruption.
 
Is it just me or is that incredibly confusing? Also, has there been two debates already? When was the 1st debate? :confused:
There were two nights, so debate 1 was the first night, debate 2 the second. So they've tracked movements after each night.

It's not really meant to be looked at as a static image like that, the interactive one makes it a little clearer:
It's not even the full thing, it's just the Biden section. Really criminal lack of colours.
https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/democratic-debate-poll/
 
@Carolina Red @Ubik Cheers. What I took away from that interactive graphic is how being on the 1st night might ultimately have been a disadvantage for Warren. She went from 18% to 14.4% after the 2nd night. Also shows how short people's attention spans are.
 
@Carolina Red @Ubik Cheers. What I took away from that interactive graphic is how being on the 1st night might ultimately have been a disadvantage for Warren. She went from 18% to 14.4% after the 2nd night. Also shows how short people's attention spans are.
Yes it does and I agree. I really want this field to get reduced quickly so we can see Warren on stage with the other main contenders. She was basically by herself in that regard on the 1st night.
 
Saw this earlier. Wish they had tried some colours to make it clearer but I guess the upshot is Biden took a massive hit, it mostly went ot Kamala, and Warren a little bit, and Bernie has the most loyal base who will support him if he shoots a man on 5th Avenue ;)

:nono: Bernie could give food and water to migrants in the Arizona desert and he wouldn't be prosecuted.
 
@Carolina Red @Ubik Cheers. What I took away from that interactive graphic is how being on the 1st night might ultimately have been a disadvantage for Warren. She went from 18% to 14.4% after the 2nd night. Also shows how short people's attention spans are.

Difference is Warren was already surging before the debates and turned in a good performance. Harris was stuck at about 7% before so it’s likely her rise is more temporary than substantive.
 
“Kamala Harris isn’t an African-American, so why does she call herself one” is the new meme making its rounds on social media.
 
I know. I don’t know that I’ve ever seen her call herself an African American. Maybe I missed it and they didn’t.
To be fair to its a weird one. She's definitely a black woman or at least half Black. African slaves were brought to Jamaica just like the USA. So obviously she has as much African heritage as any other black person in America, just that her ancestors cut sugar came instead of picking cotton.

So I don't see what the hell people are on about. She grew up in USA being exposed to the same racial issues every other black person in the USA was subject to.

It's not like black people in my country that never really had to deal with racial segregation like Americans did in the USA. She went through it and has all right to identify as a true black person of America. I can see a vast difference between her and for instance a person like Ilhan Omar who had different struggles and different racial exposure growing up as a black woman in Somalia
 
I know. I don’t know that I’ve ever seen her call herself an African American. Maybe I missed it and they didn’t.
She identifies as a black woman. And people have issue with that for some reason. Saying she's not black because she's from Jamaica which is just stupid. It's like saying John McCain isn't white because he's from Guam
 
Status
Not open for further replies.