PDA

View Full Version : Who Are You Voting For This Year?



Bartmanhomer
20 Jan 2020, 19:56
I'm voting for Joe Biden because he's the only Democrat who's experienced and competent to run as President. :)

Hawkfeathers
21 Jan 2020, 06:35
I'm voting for, and encouraging others to vote for, the actual nominee. No 3rd parties, no pie-in-the-sky-because-my-conscience, just the nominee selected by the party. I have my early preferences but if they don't make it to the ballot, it is what it is.

Rhythm
21 Jan 2020, 09:24
I don't plan on voting at all.

Emma Goldman summed things up perfectly in our system. -If voting changed anything, they'd make it illegal.

B. de Corbin
21 Jan 2020, 13:44
Whosoever runs against tRump as a Democrat.

Or that skunk out back. One or the other.

Rhythm
22 Jan 2020, 12:07
I'm watching the impeachment, I was up till the wee hours of the morning last night watching it.,..and all I'm left with is the gnawing realization that I spilled blood all over the world...for this.

I would never have done so...for this.

Now I have to be able to explain to my children why people just like their daddy did so, and why they did nothing while this happened......why I'm going to do nothing while it happens. Loved by the gods, cursed to live while others died....so that I can watch this?

Hawkfeathers
22 Jan 2020, 21:00
Whosoever runs against tRump as a Democrat.

Or that skunk out back. One or the other.

And I just pictured Tulsi G. when I read that....you know how she has that skunk stripe in her hair....LOL

Shahaku
23 Jan 2020, 19:22
I'm voting for Joe Biden because he's the only Democrat who's experienced and competent to run as President. :)

Might I ask why you think he's the only one with experience and competence? Warren and Bernie both fit that category. And while I have a few major hold ups on Buttigeig, and he's less experienced, sometimes fresh eyes make all the difference. Honestly, Bidens stance in many issues (cutting social services, a history of racist policy efforts, his stance on abortion) from what I've found, make him my least favorable candidate.

Either way. I'll vote for the democratic nominee.

Bartmanhomer
23 Jan 2020, 21:11
Might I ask why you think he's the only one with experience and competence? Warren and Bernie both fit that category. And while I have a few major hold ups on Buttigeig, and he's less experienced, sometimes fresh eyes make all the difference. Honestly, Bidens stance in many issues (cutting social services, a history of racist policy efforts, his stance on abortion) from what I've found, make him my least favorable candidate.

Either way. I'll vote for the democratic nominee.

Because Biden have been experience in office as Vice President and he's very efficient to do the job. I don't trust other nominees especially Warren and Bernie after finding out that both of them have a shady history.

Shahaku
24 Jan 2020, 06:09
Because Biden have been experience in office as Vice President and he's very efficient to do the job. I don't trust other nominees especially Warren and Bernie after finding out that both of them have a shady history.

What about Bidens shady history? He's supported ending social security. He's voted for drug laws that target African Americans. He's stated that Roe vs Wade went too far and women shouldn't have rights to their own bodies. Every candidate has some sort of shady history when they get to be that age. This arguement is the Anne one that divided voters last time and caused trump to win.

Bartmanhomer
24 Jan 2020, 06:31
What about Bidens shady history? He's supported ending social security. He's voted for drug laws that target African Americans. He's stated that Roe vs Wade went too far and women shouldn't have rights to their own bodies. Every candidate has some sort of shady history when they get to be that age. This arguement is the Anne one that divided voters last time and caused trump to win.

Oh wow. I didn't hear about that.

Rhythm
24 Jan 2020, 07:33
That's using the term shady history in an awfully novel way, isn't it? A way that amplifies opposition messaging with the same semantics, but a more serious connotation.

All three are professional politicians. They've all voted for something or against something that a person is likely to disagree with. It's their job. Do we hear much about a garbageman with the shady history of taking out the trash?

From the outside looking in, as a non participator - wouldn't it be better to amplify liberal messaging together - rather than using opposition talking points in a circular firing squad?

Bartmanhomer
24 Jan 2020, 08:09
That's using the term shady history in an awfully novel way, isn't it? A way that amplifies opposition messaging with the same semantics, but a more serious connotation.

All three are professional politicians. They've all voted for something or against something that a person is likely to disagree with. It's their job. Do we hear much about a garbageman with the shady history of taking out the trash?

From the outside looking in, as a non-participator - wouldn't it be better to amplify liberal messaging together - rather than using opposition talking points in a circular firing squad?

With all due respect, I want to vote the right nominee who fit and qualified to run as president rather than a nominee that has ulterior motive who might do more harm than good.

Rhythm
24 Jan 2020, 08:47
OFC. I must've communicated myself poorly. I was wondering if there were something other than having a history of voting on the wrong side of wedge issues (however the right or wrong side is defined, whatever the issue), something more.

Bartmanhomer
24 Jan 2020, 08:57
OFC. I must've communicated myself poorly. I was wondering if there were something other than having a history of voting on the wrong side of wedge issues (however the right or wrong side is defined, whatever the issue), something more.

Your communication is fine. I'm just saying that there are two sides (positive and negative) on each nominee and judged to see if people feel if they qualified enough to vote.

Shahaku
24 Jan 2020, 09:49
I think the biggest qualification for a president should be empathy and character. But those are hard to measure. I know they're things Trump lacks significantly, and I don't feel I've seen much evidence of it in Biden. But I don't know them, and it would take much more time than I have right now to figure it out. My main point was that blindly supporting a single candidate because you feel they have more experience shouldn't be the only determining factor. And looking at how they voted on those major issues can help you get a feel for their character.

Bartmanhomer
24 Jan 2020, 10:09
I think the biggest qualification for a president should be empathy and character. But those are hard to measure. I know they're things Trump lacks significantly, and I don't feel I've seen much evidence of it in Biden. But I don't know them, and it would take much more time than I have right now to figure it out. My main point was that blindly supporting a single candidate because you feel they have more experience shouldn't be the only determining factor. And looking at how they voted on those major issues can help you get a feel for their character.

Well I did my homework with everybody nominee and feel that Biden is more qualified than everybody else.

Warren: She secretly doesn't support the LGBT
Sanders: He's sexist against women
Buttigieg: He likes Chick-Fil-A food even though that franchise is Anti-LGBT and plus he's gay himself.

So I did all of my homework and analyze everybody else with the nominee so I feel like Biden is very qualified and competent to feel to need to vote for him.

B. de Corbin
24 Jan 2020, 15:33
I think the biggest qualification for a president should be empathy and character. But those are hard to measure. I know they're things Trump lacks significantly, and I don't feel I've seen much evidence of it in Biden. But I don't know them, and it would take much more time than I have right now to figure it out.

Thing about looking for compassion and character is that they are most visible in their absence. You can safely assume that a person is of average compassion and character, unless they demonstrate otherwise (which is usually easily determined by listening to those who have have had dealings with that individual).

Unfortunately, it is much more difficult to identify people with high levels of compassion and character because A. those people seldom sing their own praises (in fact, doing so almost guarantees that compassion and character are lacking), and B. people forget mind actions quickly - unless they become close to the person, while had actions stick to your mind like a tick.

- - - Updated - - -


I think the biggest qualification for a president should be empathy and character. But those are hard to measure. I know they're things Trump lacks significantly, and I don't feel I've seen much evidence of it in Biden. But I don't know them, and it would take much more time than I have right now to figure it out.

Thing about looking for compassion and character is that they are most visible in their absence. You can safely assume that a person is of average compassion and character, unless they demonstrate otherwise (which is usually easily determined by listening to those who have have had dealings with that individual).

Unfortunately, it is much more difficult to identify people with high levels of compassion and character because A. those people seldom sing their own praises (in fact, doing so almost guarantees that compassion and character are lacking), and B. people forget mind actions quickly - unless they become close to the person, while had actions stick to your mind like a tick.

Rhythm
25 Jan 2020, 02:36
The narrative of the ulterior motive has become a sort of political golem. It has no life of it's own. A person really can believe in horrible shit...and a person really can believe that the (to us) horrible shit that they espouse will make a positive difference.

Its not on account of "ulterior motives" or "shady history" that we might disagree with a person, we disagree because we think they are wrong. There is a very real cost to imagining that people or their positions are bad "because they are dishonest"..compared to "because we disagree with them".

So far, shady history and disingenuity have been used as euphemisms for political disagreement, in thread. Isn't it important to understand the distinction?

Bartmanhomer
25 Jan 2020, 05:36
The narrative of the ulterior motive has become a sort of political golem. It has no life of its own. A person really can believe in horrible shit...and a person really can believe that the (to us) horrible shit that they espouse will make a positive difference.

It's not on account of "ulterior motives" or "shady history" that we might disagree with a person, we disagree because we think they are wrong. There is a very real cost to imagining that people or their positions are bad "because they are dishonest"..compared to "because we disagree with them".

So far, shady history and disingenuity have been used as euphemisms for political disagreement, in the thread. Isn't it important to understand the distinction?

Well Well I already explained who I'm voting for so that's that

Shahaku
25 Jan 2020, 07:22
Well Well I already explained who I'm voting for so that's that

Then you don't have to continue replying to, or even reading, the thread.


The narrative of the ulterior motive has become a sort of political golem. It has no life of it's own. A person really can believe in horrible shit...and a person really can believe that the (to us) horrible shit that they espouse will make a positive difference.

Its not on account of "ulterior motives" or "shady history" that we might disagree with a person, we disagree because we think they are wrong. There is a very real cost to imagining that people or their positions are bad "because they are dishonest"..compared to "because we disagree with them".

So far, shady history and disingenuity have been used as euphemisms for political disagreement, in thread. Isn't it important to understand the distinction?

I understand where you're coming from with this, but I do believe that some political stances and public quotes show a difference in character and morals that matter. Some things you just can't agree to disagree on.

Rhythm
26 Jan 2020, 01:34
Right, there are disagreements that matter. Still...that's a disagreement. Not a shady history. It's not clear that you and Bart are even discussing the same thing when using the term - and this is what I'm commenting on. Especially considering the examples. You have a public history of votes and positions in mind, he has petes preference in chicken sandwiches.

Liberals need to find a better way to communicate amongst themselves, or you'll end up continuing to amplify conservatives negative messaging.

Shahaku
26 Jan 2020, 07:43
I continued using the term because it's how Bart views their voting history and stances, as shady history. Perhaps, we could have used more clear language.