If Biden was a Republican, could you imagine how savage they would at attacking his mental incompetence
- Thread starter The Oracle
- Start date
And dont feel their elected officials are doing anything about it. Either party. Because it was a bypartisan effort that brought all the laws in that protect the police.
You have my sympathies. It's truly unfortunate that you really don't have a choice in your vote. It's why you need a third party. So they can be held accountable. 8 years of a Black president made no difference. Neither will four of Biden/Harris
Okay, if they are the same old, same old to you, then why on earth do you have that bias towards that "doddering right wing fool" in all you arguments and try to debate only us and not the right wingers. My stance is the same as Sanders, i.e. better to see Biden rather than Trump in the Whitehouse after the 2020 Elections. Unless you think that Sanders does not have your "evidence" as to why Trump should stay on!! BTW Biden is not as right wing as Trump. He agrees with Sanders on numerous policies that he wants to implement. Period!!
Shhhhhhh... it is going on, and Sanders is so far right....... lesser of the two evils. Biden by a Mile!!
Let me get this straight. Providing context as a Black American on topics that DIRECTLY affect me (namely racism as viewed by a Black American) to those who are neither...."the worse it looks" on me? Am I getting that right?
mmmmkay.
My stated reasons are "golden facts". There is some crime of opportunity going on (there always is) but the genesis of the unrest is as I stated. And none of you has presented any alternate reason. Do you think people took to the streets..."just because"?
A bunch of the people on this board think just that.
Butler100 claims to think they took to the streets to protest for a third party possibly. Or rather, the logic is they are protesting because they feel the system isn't working, and since the only thing that will make the system work is a third party, that is what they are protesting for.
But as I have mentioned before, it is difficult to think Butler is arguing in good faith. As you noted above, there is context to the various votes he cites which complicates his narrative.
What is important to remember is that Butler doesn't actually care about any of those votes. They are just a rhetorical strategy to justify his conclusion that you shouldn't vote for "The Establishment".
He says the Crime Bill is disqualifying (we won't go into him not knowing its history, contents, or effects) but he supported Sanders who voted for that bill.
He says the Iraq war is disquilgying, but he supported Markey, who voted for that war.
Etc.
He insists voting for the lesser evil is something no one should do, but now says his support for Sanders was just because Sanders was the lesser evil and has said repeatedly he has voted for all three major Canadian parties in his time because sometimes you just need to get the current occupant of a seat out.
Its all bullshit, so arguing on those lines is unhelpful. He is a populist first, as he has said. The actual ideology or policy is secondary to that. I do believe him when he says he would prefer a bunch of progressive outcomes. But advancing those policy goals is not as important as getting the wrong people out of power. Removing the wrong is more important than getting the right people in.
Someone who has the wrong policies completely but has a populist affect is fine with him. Someone who isn't right people, but disrupted someone who is wrong people, is still an improvement in a "lesser of two evils" kind of way.
It is like a kind of virtue ethics, everything depends on the people involved.
Unfortunately for your argument, the "just because" as you put it is indeed the way extreme people who are bored or lack judgment, operate. It's like the people who strike but do it to have fun. Not all strikers believe in the cause. How you cannot see that is surprising.
Frank lol I'm not going to play that video, on the simple notion that you guys are too far extreme and I barely lean the other, with sound judgment. You are entertaining though.
Last edited:
I would encourage you to read through the thread and see what I was addressing as it doesn't seem like we're talking about the same things. I readily acknowledge that some of the looting and rioting is opportunistic. But the genesis (the match as it were) of the masses taking to the streets, was the slow, televised murder of George Floyd by law enforcement and the slow response and closing ranks by authorities that ensued. And this was on the heels of a similarly egregious incident where Ahmad Arbery was chased down and executed by former law enforcement officer and preceded by the no-knock killing of Breonna Taylor and saw a subsequent shooting of Rashard Brooks in the back, after a drunken incident with another set of officers in Atlanta.
They have taken to the streets to argue that the leadership of both parties is failing them. And have been off and on starting in Seattle 2 decades ago at the G20. At its only been getting worse, not better. Under the total control at one time or another of both parties.
And your stated goals in another thread are clearly not the stated goals of the two reigning parties nor ever will be as they don't serve the interests of the donors of both parties.
So your incrementalism approach is doomed to abject failure. What will you do then?
