Baden
9.9k
Yours is junk-yard dog rhetoric with rabid overtones
— tim wood

And this is:

That comment is so fucking nuts...that anyone attempting to comment on it further than what I am saying right here, is also fucking nuts.
— Frank Apisa


But, fine, have a look at street's latest post and I'd also be happy to list sources and quotes therein that explicate why Biden is so unpalatable to much the left. Let's debate it on that basis. — Baden

Baden...keep your cool.

Biden is far from perfect...and he was low on the list of those I was hoping would win.

Early on I got in a very heated debate with my sister...because my position was that Sanders was the guy would should win. My arguments with her were filled with, "If the Democrats are going to settle for Republican lite...fuck 'em.

Of course, I live in New Jersey, where Trump would lose to Satan...so at that time I was content with, "Bernie can do it...and we at least owe our conscience an attempt."

The conservatives did that back in 1964 against a rather unpopular LBJ. The Electoral College vote ended up at 486 - 52...and we know who got the 52, because nobody ever mentions the late President Goldwater.

Things change. They did for Biden on the issues mentioned.

And right now I stick with what I said above:

Any American who votes in a way that helps Trump retain the presidency does a disservice to America and the world on a par with the people who helped bring Adolf Hitler to power...and who helped retain him in power.

There is more truth in that...than in EVERYTHING you and Streetlight have written.

How exactly did Anita Hill get "shit all over" in the Clarence Thomas hearings? — tim wood

Oh you don't know? Maybe you should ask Joe Biden, who was so worried about his conduct that he issued a half-hearted apology to Hill which to this day she has not accepted:

"As committee chairman, Biden was responsible for calling and questioning witnesses, for controlling the pace of testimony and cross-examination and for defining the tenor of the hearing. His critics say he failed in each regard, calling witnesses inimical to Hill while failing to call corroborating witnesses, forcing Hill to describe in graphic detail scenes of harassment she had suffered, and in general failing to defend Hill’s vulnerability and to direct the hearing. “Can you tell the committee what was the most embarrassing of all the incidences that you have alleged?” Biden asked Hill at one point.

“He absolutely failed at almost every point to take control of the event and to make it dignified and safe for Anita Hill,” said Michie [, Helena director of the Center for the Study of Women, Gender, and Sexuality at Rice University in Texas - SX]. “The other thing he did is that he made her repeat in detail every sexual allegation in front of this panel. And she said repeatedly, ‘It’s all in writing, you have it all in writing.’ And he would say, ‘I know it’s uncomfortable, but we have to do it.'"

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/apr/27/jor-biden-anita-hill-clarence-thomas-1991-hearings

Shall we go through the rest of the list? Do you want to go on? Tell me more about the supposed inaccuracies I'm peddling. If Biden was black you'd no doubt be accusing me of being racist too. Too bad you don't get to use that one hey? Must be very sad for you. No worse than being an ignorant ass about history though.

You're both just fine with this?

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/24/joe-biden-sexual-assault-claim-tara-reade-deserves-to-be-heard-katie-halper — Baden

I won't expect you to understand, since it's nuanced, but no I'm not. I don't like Biden at all, nor am I a "self-righteous Dem" -- I'm pointing out a simple choice: Trump or Biden. Biden's an old, senile establishment Democrat of the Clinton-Obama machine. It doesn't take genius to see that. What requires another 30 seconds of thought, which you apparently fail to do, is to compare him to Trump and see which will cause the country (and the world) more damage in the next four years. Then you hold your nose and vote against the worst choice, especially in a swing state. This is not an endorsement for Biden or the Democratic party. It's not "selling out." It's a simple choice.

If still unconvinced, ask yourself another question: Who can be pressured more to adopt progressive policies, like the policies Sanders was advocating -- Trump or Biden? That's another important consideration, quite apart from policy differences (like that of climate change).

So no, the point isn't a matter of "being fine" with the candidate the DNC has deemed worthy of the nomination. I can't stand him, but I will vote for him -- as I did for Hillary in 2016, which was the correct thing to do given the assumption that we would like the best chances to go on as a species. We have the same unfortunate choice in 2020. And yet many people, including you apparently, still struggle with it. Should take 3 minutes to decide what to do here.

How exactly did Anita Hill get "shit all over" in the Clarence Thomas hearings? — tim wood

He admitted he was wrong in his lack of support for her.

By saying things like this, you are guaranteed to alienate progressives and independents, who you need to win. — Baden

I campaigned for Bernie, so I guess that makes me "progressive." I was and still am livid at the DNC's shenanigans (for the second time).

I'm not alienated in the least. Trump isn't Hitler, but those so repulsed by Biden will help him get re-elected if they don't vote or vote third party. That's both inexcusable and infinitely stupid. If this were the 90s, maybe I'd understand. But the stakes are too high now for protest votes and pouting at home.

Shall we go through the rest of the list? Do you want to go on? Tell me more about the supposed inaccuracies I'm peddling. If Biden was black you'd no doubt be accusing me of being racist too. Too bad you don't get to use that one hey? — StreetlightX

Not much point. You view it from a distance through your telescope and decide that your understanding of what you see is all there is to it. But on the ground where the reality is - or was, is where you were never anywhere near. Yours, then, is shallow revisionism based on the wrong focus on the wrong things. And did you not read where I advised against the mistake of thinking I'm defending Biden?

In simplest terms, Clarence Thomas complained he was the victim of a high-tech lynching. In a narrow sense I think he was correct - in no way to be construed as a defense of Thomas. Your skewed view and invective is its own kind of yellow "lynching" of Biden. If it serves some therapeutic function for you, I hope you get better quickly. But whatever the merit of your remarks, or bits of truth buried in them, they're all thrown over by your use of them.

Busing alone was no simple matter, and not to be reduced by the likes of you to your personal notions of it. That is, respect the thing itself as it is in itself. My own view of school desegregation is that Eisenhower's solution in Little Rock in 1954 was the right approach. And that not being possible in many jurisdictions, a federally enforced financial equality of school systems would have been nice - although that so difficult a subject it's almost unaddressable in those terms. In Texas, for example, rich cities objected mightily to having their property taxes shunted to poor cities' school systems. Again, these not simple issues for the like of you.

And that's the substance of my presence at the moment in this discussion: not to defend, but to object to your brand of ignorance masquerading as knowledge. You read something and think you know enough about the subject to comment on it. In the manner of your comments, you make clear you don't. You could, if you allowed for nuance and complexity and the possibility that your own notions were contingent and speculative, but that's work and where's the fun in that? But it makes you a brown shirt, .

I won't expect you to understand, since it's nuanced, but no I'm not. I don't like Biden at all, nor am I a "self-righteous Dem" -- I'm pointing out a simple choice: Trump or Biden. — Xtrix

Amen.

Not much point. You view it from a distance through your telescope and decide that your understanding of what you see is all there is to it. But on the ground where the reality is - or was, is where you were never anywhere near. Yours, then, is shallow revisionism based on the wrong focus on the wrong things. And did you not read where I advised against the mistake of thinking I'm defending Biden?

In simplest terms, Clarence Thomas complained he was the victim of a high-tech lynching. In a narrow sense I think he was correct - in no way to be construed as a defense of Thomas. Your skewed view and invective is its own kind of yellow "lynching" of Biden. If it serves some therapeutic function for you, I hope you get better quickly. But whatever the merit of your remarks, or bits of truth buried in them, they're all thrown over by your use of them.

Busing alone was no simple matter, and not to be reduced by the likes of you to your personal notions of it. That is, respect the thing itself as it is in itself. My own view of school desegregation is that Eisenhower's solution in Little Rock in 1954 was the right approach. And that not being possible in many jurisdictions, a federally enforced financial equality of school systems would have been nice - although that so difficult a subject it's almost unaddressable in those terms. In Texas, for example, rich cities objected mightily to having their property taxes shunted to poor city's school systems. Again, these not simple issues for the like of you.

And that's the substance of my presence at the moment in this discussion: not to defend, but to object to your brand of ignorance masquerading as knowledge. You read something and think you know enough about the subject to comment on it. In the manner of your comments, you make clear you don't. You could, if you allowed for nuance and complexity and the possibility that your own notions were contingent and speculative, but that's work and where's the fun in that? But it makes you a brown shirt, . — tim wood

Wow four paragraphs and not a thing to say about Biden but about everything but. It's almost like it's all irrelevant :chin:

Wow four paragraphs and not a thing to say about Biden but about everything but. It's almost like it's all irrelevant — StreetlightX

And that's the substance of my presence at the moment in this discussion: not to defend, but to object to your brand of ignorance masquerading as knowledge. — tim wood

Perhaps if you had actually read the four paragraphs....

Acknowledging your inability to say anything of relevance does not make it any better. It's just putting a lampshade over it.

One tires of the junkyard dog. I leave you to your fleas.

No claim of racism today? You must be feeling tired.

It really comes down to this: those who say that not voting for Biden are voting for Trump miss the fact that it was very policies and politics championed by Biden and his ilk which got you Trump in the first place. A vote for Biden is a vote for the next Trump, and the one after that.

American electoral politics has been a ratchet mechanism for the last two generations, with each click of the wheel forestalled only by a momentary holding pattern before plunging straight back into reactionary hell again. Voting for a Trumpian catalyst is a prolongation of pain, not an anaesthetic to it.

Such righteous people, determined to vote their "conscience" yet again. Such pure convictions.

Sure, Trump will be re-elected and continue destroying both the planet and the economy for four years, appointing another 2 Supreme Court justices for a lifetime, etc. -- but at least we'll feel better.

"Brownshirts" lmao

:love:

I am. You wore me out. Btw, my memory sometimes plays tricks, but I think you objected mightily to my characterization of your remarks, but took care not to deny them. If you think it worth your time and effort, could you direct me to that denial? Or you could deny it here in as few as five words.

It really comes down to this: those who say that not voting for Biden are voting for Trump miss the fact that it was very policies and politics championed by Biden and his ilk which got you Trump in the first place. — StreetlightX

That point has hardly been "missed."

A vote for Biden is a vote for the next Trump, and the one after that. — StreetlightX

No, it isn't. A vote for Biden is a vote to get Trump out of office. Then the work continues: not the analysis of armchair philosophers and political hobbyists, but of real political organizing and activism which will continue to pressure the administration into incorporating progressive policies.

That's how change is done, not by simply voting every four years and especially not voting for the the worst president in history (or contributing to his re-election with a sanctimonious "vote of conscience.")

American electoral politics has been a ratchet mechanism for the last two generations, with each click of the wheel forestalled only by a momentary holding pattern before plunging straight back into reactionary hell again. — StreetlightX

Riveting analysis. Now run along and help Trump get re-elected.

No I believe I'll stick with "go [####] yourself [####]".

I don't remember you ever denying being a pedophile, tim. Can you direct me to where you did that?

See what you're doing? Don't do it.

Seriously, this thread has become kind of disgusting. :grimace:

"Won't adopt any of your ideas."

Yeah, to political hobbyists like you, who do nothing except give your very deep political analysis (and thankful we all are for it) every four years, it's a foregone conclusion that no ideas will be adopted. (Hint: because you do nothing.)

Your conclusion: let's make sure we convince enough people to vote third party, or just sit out, and thus help Trump secure another 4 years.

Such brilliant logic.

Yes, when someone suggests their interlocutor is a racist for no reason whatsoever but merely to try to smear them, I would agree that is disgusting.

But of real political organizing and activism — Xtrix

Last time I checked, 'being held electorally hostage' was not in the activist playbook, but I suppose Americans do things weird.

But of real political organizing and activism
— Xtrix

Last time I checked, 'being held electorally hostage' was not in the activist playbook, but I suppose Americans do things weird. — StreetlightX

More brilliance.

Try Twitter.

Why Twitter? I can play with halfwits right here!

Yes, when someone suggests their interlocutor is a racist for no reason whatsoever but merely to try to smear them, I would agree that is disgusting. — Baden

I didn't see that. I don't know who you mean. I guess the forum would just be quiet without a cesspool thread?

I'm sailing! Waaaah!

I don't remember you ever denying being a pedophile, tim. Can you direct me to where you did that?

See what you're doing. — Baden

C'mon Baden. You read - I suppose you read - his replies. Tremendous energy and invective, some even new to me, of such timbre he quickly censored them, but he omitted mentioning where I was wrong/mistaken/misinformed. And the difference - how do you miss this? - is that his was in response to something I actually wrote. Yours is a whole other animal, and not a hole I think either of us wants to go down, yes?

Why Twitter? I can play with halfwits right here! — StreetlightX

You'll fit right in. Better match for you.

Oh and speaking of Twitter!