2020 US Presidential Election

[PeteJ]

I didn't say your priorities don't matter. I just said that many people have different priorities and different viewpoints.

Vague, empty statement. The sky is often blue and the ground is usually green and brown.

 

[FGG]

Vague, empty statement. The sky is often blue and the ground is usually green and brown.

Correcting your misinterpretation of what i said with what I actually said is a "vague, empty statement"?

I think it's obvious we don't communicate well so I'm just going to bow out of any more discussion about this.

Independent of this, hope you are well. I know you have been having an especially hard time.

 

[PeteJ]

Correcting your misinterpretation of what i said with what I actually said is a "vague, empty statement"?

I think it's obvious we don't communicate well so I'm just going to bow out of any more discussion about this.

Independent of this, hope you are well. I know you have been having an especially hard time.

Fine.

But, I said nothing wrong or inaccurate. Ignoring my points by responding with a vague statement is what you did. That's all I was saying. I didn't misinterpret anything.

 

[GlennS]

If anyone wanted to actually make the country better, they would simply give the people as much freedom as possible. Any individual knows what's best for their life, neighborhood, and community far more than anyone thousands of miles away ever will.

That's just another opinion.

Individuals are selfish short-term thinkers.

Read about Tragedy of the Commons, for instance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

The first casualty of putting "freedom" first is the environment. It reflects 18th century thinking when the US was an untapped wilderness with seemingly endless resources to exploit.

Here's a tracker of his deregulation moves.

Deregulation is catastrophic for the environment, but I can tell you don't give a rat's ass about it so this falls upon deaf ears.

 

[PeteJ]

You're a nutjob.

Liberals and leftists won't address points. Instead they will ignore what you say and then claim that there is no communication.

Here's yet another fact and insight about BLM.



I guess most of the liberals don't care because you are communists and Marxists alike.

The problem is you exist in my country too. The more power you give the scummy leftists makes it worse for me and others like me. I am still waiting for disability and we have a Marxist government in power. Leftists don't help with social welfare and typical liberal issues that are important.

All they do is flood with immigration for more votes. They don't care. But, stupid sheep like you affect me! Then you ignore my points and subject matter since you are cowards or can't understand or don't want to.

At least, one or two tried to make the effort at least. People are stupid and trust the government way too much - if their preferred political bent is in power. Otherwise, you hypocrites have a problem with it.

 

[FGG]

That's just another opinion.

Individuals are selfish short-term thinkers.

Read about Tragedy of the Commons, for instance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons

The first casualty of putting "freedom" first is the environment. It reflects 18th century thinking when the US was an untapped wilderness with seemingly endless resources to exploit.

Deregulation is catastrophic for the environment, but I can tell you don't give a rat's ass about it so this falls upon deaf ears.

Environmental issues are important to me so I have a question about the libertarian stance. @AtlasFainted?

I remember many years ago seeing an interview with Ron Paul where he says the libertarian stance is corporations should not be able to pollute outside their property but should not be restricted on how they use their private land.

Considering how water tables and air circulation works, this didn't seem like a viable solution to me.

Or, if he meant it literally, he would be suggesting 100% green technologies to comply (and how would this be enforced without government oversight?).

I know this tends not to be a "core" issue for conservatives but some groups align well with environmentalists (avid hunters are generally advocates for conservation, for instance). Any thoughts?

 

[Emgee]

Rant of the day:

The format of the debates has to be significantly modified. It's way too easy for the moderators, media outlets, and other political party administrators to influence how the debates turn out and take shape. Take Andrew Yang for example: his stage time was obviously limited as an attempt to keep voters from hearing his main policy components.

The moderators would rather ask the same three questions to the same three candidates to stir arguments and drive ratings. I personally don't even take away much salient information from the debates as they are predicated on rehearsed talking points that are targeted to appease the masses. It's rare when a candidate explains a policy in somewhat deeper detail due to lack of answering time and the moderators/other candidates will just simply cut you off. You have to do your own homework as a voter to decide what candidate you best align with.

Mr. Yang became known as the "$1,000/month guy" but never got to fully elaborate his stances in many instances. Between the Freedom Dividend, Medicare for All, and Human-Centered Capitalism, he made too much sense in my opinion. Thus, he was seen as a threat to conventional politics and the status quo, and had his stage time significantly limited until he had to drop out. Even if he was not your cup of tea, he was undeniably accurate on many fronts (especially AI and its economical impact).

Regardless of who your candidate choice is, I'm sick of having to select the candidate who is "not as bad" as the other one. I heard the phrase the "lesser of two evils" being used a lot during the last election - that should not be the basis for which we decide a political leader. It's clear that the DNC and GOP both have their featured candidates they aim to showcase. Politics is a dirty game. Money talks and special interests walk. It's just a shame how truly broken our system is.

 

[PeteJ]

Rant of the day:

The format of the debates has to be significantly modified. It's way too easy for the moderators, media outlets, and other political party administrators to influence how the debates turn out and take shape. Take Andrew Yang for example: his stage time was obviously limited as an attempt to keep voters from hearing his main policy components.

The moderators would rather ask the same three questions to the same three candidates to stir arguments and drive ratings. I personally don't even take away much salient information from the debates as they are predicated on rehearsed talking points that are targeted to appease the masses. It's rare when a candidate explains a policy in somewhat deeper detail due to lack of answering time and the moderators/other candidates will just simply cut you off. You have to do your own homework as a voter to decide what candidate you best align with.

Mr. Yang became known as the "$1,000/month guy" but never got to fully elaborate his stances in many instances. Between the Freedom Dividend, Medicare for All, and Human-Centered Capitalism, he made too much sense in my opinion. Thus, he was seen as a threat to conventional politics and the status quo, and had his stage time significantly limited until he had to drop out. Even if he was not your cup of tea, he was undeniably accurate on many fronts (especially AI and its economical impact).

Regardless of who your candidate choice is, I'm sick of having to select the candidate who is "not as bad" as the other one. I heard the phrase the "lesser of two evils" being used a lot during the last election - that should not be the basis for which we decide a political leader. It's clear that the DNC and GOP both have their featured candidates they aim to showcase. Politics is a dirty game. Money talks and special interests walk. It's just a shame how truly broken our system is.

The same hypocrites agreed with you. The problem isn't just the system but the sheep that support the system. They are the ones with the mentality to vote for "the lesser evil."

 

[PeteJ]

Most of the liberals are ignoring what's going on (in their country). I could post several videos everyday but the ignorant sheep will just shrug it off. BLM protesters beating the crap out of some white guy victim. It seems there's videos posted on Twitter every day. Of course, the media ignores it.

I bring it up because it's an example of the MSM spin and the lying they do, which manipulates the sheep. There's also an agenda to remove rights and freedoms. I guess some Americans would describe it as an attack on the 1st Amendment and they would be right. I support leftist loons to say whatever they say even when it's insane and against me.

 

[Zugzug]

Rant of the day:

The format of the debates has to be significantly modified. It's way too easy for the moderators, media outlets, and other political party administrators to influence how the debates turn out and take shape. Take Andrew Yang for example: his stage time was obviously limited as an attempt to keep voters from hearing his main policy components.

The moderators would rather ask the same three questions to the same three candidates to stir arguments and drive ratings. I personally don't even take away much salient information from the debates as they are predicated on rehearsed talking points that are targeted to appease the masses. It's rare when a candidate explains a policy in somewhat deeper detail due to lack of answering time and the moderators/other candidates will just simply cut you off. You have to do your own homework as a voter to decide what candidate you best align with.

Mr. Yang became known as the "$1,000/month guy" but never got to fully elaborate his stances in many instances. Between the Freedom Dividend, Medicare for All, and Human-Centered Capitalism, he made too much sense in my opinion. Thus, he was seen as a threat to conventional politics and the status quo, and had his stage time significantly limited until he had to drop out. Even if he was not your cup of tea, he was undeniably accurate on many fronts (especially AI and its economical impact).

Regardless of who your candidate choice is, I'm sick of having to select the candidate who is "not as bad" as the other one. I heard the phrase the "lesser of two evils" being used a lot during the last election - that should not be the basis for which we decide a political leader. It's clear that the DNC and GOP both have their featured candidates they aim to showcase. Politics is a dirty game. Money talks and special interests walk. It's just a shame how truly broken our system is.

I partially agree, but I think it can take time away from the real candidates. Yes, in this case, Andrew Yang was a rare person on the outside with some good ideas; I would have liked to see him get more time as well. But at the same rate, I found it rather annoying to have to entertain Tom Steyer and Marianne Williamson, who were outsiders. I also was saddened to see Booker go. Really, I was saddened to see Biden force many people out.

Where I fully agree with you is making the debates more substantive. I like Bernie's idea of long forums, where ideas are fully expressed. The "sound bite" style is just an insult to the American public, who has real problems.

Also, regarding Yang: Even considering the fact that he was given little speaking time, he let me down at the debates. People want to see a little bit of assertiveness. Sure, playing by the rules is nice, but he seemed quite timid. He's more of a great idea guy than the face of leadership in my opinion.

 

[Emgee]

I partially agree, but I think it can take time away from the real candidates. Yes, in this case, Andrew Yang was a rare person on the outside with some good ideas; I would have liked to see him get more time as well. But at the same rate, I found it rather annoying to have to entertain Tom Steyer and Marianne Williamson, who were outsiders. I also was saddened to see Booker go. Really, I was saddened to see Biden force many people out.

Where I fully agree with you is making the debates more substantive. I like Bernie's idea of long forums, where ideas are fully expressed. The "sound bite" style is just an insult to the American public, who has real problems.

Also, regarding Yang: Even considering the fact that he was given little speaking time, he let me down at the debates. People want to see a little bit of assertiveness. Sure, playing by the rules is nice, but he seemed quite timid. He's more of a great idea guy than the face of leadership in my opinion.

I am also a fan of Bernie's proposal for long forums. I agree that the "sound bite" style is extremely insulting to voters. Ideally, I would like to have forums for each candidate to fully express their stances prior to the debates as a means to weed out candidates such as Steyer or Williamson. Perhaps, some sort of polling or voting system could be enacted to determine which candidates would then qualify for the more substantive debates. Would this be a lengthy process? Absolutely. However, having the opportunity to fully understand each candidate's policies in depth would be well worth it.

Agree to disagree on Yang. I would take great ideas over being a face of leadership ten times out of ten. To some degree, I personally don't have to love the character of the person I vote for, so much as I have to agree with their policies. For sports fans: I always make the Bill Belichick (NFL head coach of the New England Patriots) example: not viewed as a warm or outspoken leader - but I would want him to coach my team. He is widely regarded as not being a "nice guy", but he is going down as one of the greatest NFL coaches (if not the greatest) in history. This is not to say that Andrew Yang is not nice (he appears to be one of the nicest guys ever), but this is to demonstrate my view that even if he wasn't a warm or outspoken leader - I would still vote for him. However, I do believe he is a strong leader which I will detail below.

Andrew Yang did exemplify leadership experience at Venture for America and the various tech startups (ProPhase, MMF Systems, Manhattan GMAT) where he held upper-management positions. He strikes me as a leader who leads through example. He made it clear that he was not there to bicker with other candidates over senseless talking points. And, ultimately, that was his downfall.

 

[Zugzug]

Agree to disagree on Yang. I would take great ideas over being a face of leadership ten times out of ten. To some degree, I personally don't have to love the character of the person I vote for, so much as I have to agree with their policies. For sports fans: I always make the Bill Belichick (NFL head coach of the New England Patriots) example: not viewed as a warm or outspoken leader - but I would want him to coach my team. He is widely regarded as not being a "nice guy", but he is going down as one of the greatest NFL coaches (if not the greatest) in history. This is not to say that Andrew Yang is not nice (he appears to be one of the nicest guys ever), but this is to demonstrate my view that even if he wasn't a warm or outspoken leader - I would still vote for him. However, I do believe he is a strong leader which I will detail below.

What I often found weird about Yang is that I listened to his interviews and really liked him. My favorite thing about him is that I want a leader who is smart, data-driven, and can react on the fly. At the debates, he came off....over his skiis. Being the president requires tough calls under stress; I don't think he sold that quality enough. He strikes me as more of an excellent cabinet member, where he doesn't have to ever think about public appearances. Not every hero becomes a president (as if that's even a question with our current president); I have no problem with quiet, smart cabinet members.

In your analogy, Bill Belichick would make a better VP or cabinet member.

 

[Emgee]

What I often found weird about Yang is that I listened to his interviews and really liked him. My favorite thing about him is that I want a leader who is smart, data-driven, and can react on the fly. At the debates, he came off....over his skiis. Being the president requires tough calls under stress; I don't think he sold that quality enough. He strikes me as more of an excellent cabinet member, where he doesn't have to ever think about public appearances. Not every hero becomes a president (as if that's even a question with our current president); I have no problem with quiet, smart cabinet members.

In your analogy, Bill Belichick would make a better VP or cabinet member.

I wouldn't necessarily categorize Yang as quiet. His temperament is mild and composed but he got the point across (when the moderators allowed him to). I admit that he did seem a tad ruffled at times, but at least he came across as honest and genuine. He doesn't appear to be the strongest communicator, but I prioritize his ideas and track record over his speech. He surely had to make many tough calls under stress during his corporate and non-profit career. I do wish he had more time to showcase himself, but it is what it is.

Belichick's strategic ability is what made him so great. In order to implement his strategy, he needed the capacity and freedom to do so. I feel we have a tendency to think that the President needs to be a great communicator first and foremost. We feel that the President needs to be this unifying face of leadership. Personally, I just want the best results possible. If Belichick was VP or a cabinet member, he would have to take a back seat. He needs to have the most say. He should be driving the car just as I believe Yang should, but again, it seems we agree to disagree in that regard.

 

[Zugzug]

I wouldn't necessarily categorize Yang as quiet. His temperament is mild and composed but he got the point across (when the moderators allowed him to). I admit that he did seem a tad ruffled at times, but at least he came across as honest and genuine. He doesn't appear to be the strongest communicator, but I prioritize his ideas and track record over his speech. He surely had to make many tough calls under stress during his corporate and non-profit career. I do wish he had more time to showcase himself, but it is what it is.

Belichick's strategic ability is what made him so great. In order to implement his strategy, he needed the capacity and freedom to do so. I feel we have a tendency to think that the President needs to be a great communicator first and foremost. We feel that the President needs to be this unifying face of leadership. Personally, I just want the best results possible. If Belichick was VP or a cabinet member, he would have to take a back seat. He needs to have the most say. He should be driving the car just as I believe Yang should, but again, it seems we agree to disagree in that regard.

During primary season, I often joked with my wife that when Yang was just talking off the cuff, he was brilliant and very much the kind of president that I want. But when he went into 'winning the nomination mode,' it was super awkward. His UBI proposal came off like a TRT salesman selling white noise generators.

He attracted attention with his UBI idea, but I mostly liked him for his general judgement. The dude is a critical thinker -- extremely forward thinking and data driven.

But if Putin bombed Pearl Harbor, is Yang the person I want leading that war? Honestly, not at all. I don't think he's made for that moment at all.

In the debates, I expected him to really assert himself -- talk over people a little here and there. My god, even just at the level of Buttigieg.

The reason why the candidates go over time and talk over each other is because they know America is broken and Americans know it. They want someone who isn't afraid to put assertion over rules. Obviously, within reason. I saw Yang as way too polite for the moment. He's brilliant and he should flaunt it.

 

[Emgee]

During primary season, I often joked with my wife that when Yang was just talking off the cuff, he was brilliant and very much the kind of president that I want. But when he went into 'winning the nomination mode,' it was super awkward. His UBI proposal came off like a TRT salesman selling white noise generators.

He attracted attention with his UBI idea, but I mostly liked him for his general judgement. The dude is a critical thinker -- extremely forward thinking and data driven.

But if Putin bombed Pearl Harbor, is Yang the person I want leading that war? Honestly, not at all. I don't think he's made for that moment at all.

In the debates, I expected him to really assert himself -- talk over people a little here and there. My god, even just at the level of Buttigieg.

The reason why the candidates go over time and talk over each other is because they know America is broken and Americans know it. They want someone who isn't afraid to put assertion over rules. Obviously, within reason. I saw Yang as way too polite for the moment. He's brilliant and he should flaunt it.

He's just too mild-mannered and respectful to cut people off and assert himself. I would honestly feel a whole lot more comfortable with him leading that war than the others that were on stage. His critical thinking and data-driven approach are very impressive. The others resort to cutting each other off because their policy components are largely similar. They need to yell in order to stand out. To me, the other candidates seemed intimidated by Yang and tried to stay away from arguments with him. He's too logical to debate. They were thrilled when he dropped out. Yang brought great ideas to the table but didn't end up with a seat. I knew he was the real deal when he donned the math hat/pin and chose "Return of the Mack" as his theme song.

 

[FGG]

During primary season, I often joked with my wife that when Yang was just talking off the cuff, he was brilliant and very much the kind of president that I want. But when he went into 'winning the nomination mode,' it was super awkward. His UBI proposal came off like a TRT salesman selling white noise generators.

He attracted attention with his UBI idea, but I mostly liked him for his general judgement. The dude is a critical thinker -- extremely forward thinking and data driven.

But if Putin bombed Pearl Harbor, is Yang the person I want leading that war? Honestly, not at all. I don't think he's made for that moment at all.

In the debates, I expected him to really assert himself -- talk over people a little here and there. My god, even just at the level of Buttigieg.

The reason why the candidates go over time and talk over each other is because they know America is broken and Americans know it. They want someone who isn't afraid to put assertion over rules. Obviously, within reason. I saw Yang as way too polite for the moment. He's brilliant and he should flaunt it.

That's a really interesting perspective, however, there are people who take longer to think (and especially react) but could still be very assertive.

I think the problem with debates is that debate performance may not reflect real world leadership but it definitely gives the illusion it does. Just a thought, I have no alternative system in mind.

 

[PeteJ]

You guys are clueless.
Canada and the USA are hopeless.

 

[Born To Slay]

During primary season, I often joked with my wife that when Yang was just talking off the cuff, he was brilliant and very much the kind of president that I want. But when he went into 'winning the nomination mode,' it was super awkward. His UBI proposal came off like a TRT salesman selling white noise generators.

He attracted attention with his UBI idea, but I mostly liked him for his general judgement. The dude is a critical thinker -- extremely forward thinking and data driven.

But if Putin bombed Pearl Harbor, is Yang the person I want leading that war? Honestly, not at all. I don't think he's made for that moment at all.

In the debates, I expected him to really assert himself -- talk over people a little here and there. My god, even just at the level of Buttigieg.

The reason why the candidates go over time and talk over each other is because they know America is broken and Americans know it. They want someone who isn't afraid to put assertion over rules. Obviously, within reason. I saw Yang as way too polite for the moment. He's brilliant and he should flaunt it.

It's interesting you say that although because Biden was the most polite one in the debates other than Yang and he ended up winning. I personally think after 4 years of Trump, people want some politeness and calm.

 

[PeteJ]

Wow, you are such sheep.



Scary.

 

[Zugzug]

You guys are clueless.
Canada and the USA are hopeless.

Thanks for imparting brilliant insight into the discussion.

You know politics is hard right? Like teams of people with IQs 50 points higher than yours can't figure it out. Criticizing is not difficult, and for some reason you think that it is. During every election cycle, I could probably write a book on how flawed the person I'm voting for is. It's called being an adult and dealing with the real world.

 

[Zugzug]

It's interesting you say that although because Biden was the most polite one in the debates other than Yang and he ended up winning. I personally think after 4 years of Trump, people want some politeness and calm.

Honestly, I think Biden won on experience, name recognition, and being Obama's VP. I don't think his debate style helped him one bit. He would have won easier if he was sharp and in command at the debates.

 

[GlennS]

I personally think after 4 years of Trump, people want some politeness and calm.

That worked to product Obama after Bush-fatigue but I think we're in an unprecedented level of polarization and anger in this country. I think there is a yearning for a more "competent" president than Trump but not a more diplomatic or agreeable one. Winner-take-all is now how people see politics. I also think the people in the know realize that the country skews right and so the democrats tend to favor more centrist candidates, not because democrats themselves are centrist, but due to pragmatism. The right doesn't feel any need to meet the left half-way and that won't change until demographic shift overtakes them.

 

[Watasha]

Deregulation is catastrophic for the environment, but I can tell you don't give a rat's ass about it so this falls upon deaf ears.

1) There are things to deregulate other than environmental protections.

2) That statement is ignorant, you know only a fraction about me. This is why we can't have civil discourse in this country. Let's try to remember why we are all here in the end, to advance the cause of a cure for tinnitus, etc. So let's try to talk to each other like so.

 

[Watasha]

That worked to product Obama after Bush-fatigue but I think we're in an unprecedented level of polarization and anger in this country. I think there is a yearning for a more "competent" president than Trump but not a more diplomatic or agreeable one. Winner-take-all is now how people see politics. I also think the people in the know realize that the country skews right and so the democrats tend to favor more centrist candidates, not because democrats themselves are centrist, but due to pragmatism. The right doesn't feel any need to meet the left half-way and that won't change until demographic shift overtakes them.

The progressive movements to the left in this country in the last 100 years is evidence that the right has compromised with the left far more than the other way around.

 

[PeteJ]

Thanks for imparting brilliant insight into the discussion.

You know politics is hard right? Like teams of people with IQs 50 points higher than yours can't figure it out. Criticizing is not difficult, and for some reason you think that it is. During every election cycle, I could probably write a book on how flawed the person I'm voting for is. It's called being an adult and dealing with the real world.

WTH are you talking about?!? You are like your friend, FGG, in being evasive and responding with something else, either unrelated or totally vague.

I was talking about a Presidential candidate disparaging whites or what could be perceived as such but no one cares. If he was talking about a different racial group, the response would be different instead of crickets.

What does "politics is hard" have to do with anything?!? Math can be hard, too, so what?!? Maybe you don't like Trump because "politics is hard" so he's having a hard time?

 

[Contrast]

The election is bread and circus for people who are easily distracted.

You guys should focus on tinnitus research unlike the sheeple who are distracted by politics.

 

[FGG]

The election is bread and circus for people who are easily distracted.

You guys should focus on tinnitus research unlike the sheeple who are distracted by politics.

Some of us do both .

 

[PeteJ]

The election is bread and circus for people who are easily distracted.

You guys should focus on tinnitus research unlike the sheeple who are distracted by politics.

Leftist governments are in power in virtually every Western country. None have done anything to support tinnitus research. This includes the United States.

 

[Zugzug]

Leftist governments are in power in virtually every Western country. None have done anything to support tinnitus research. This includes the United States.

To be honest, I feel sad that you actually think Trump gives a rip about you. You've trashed @FGG, someone who is a huge advocate for research, yet you excuse Trump. My god, Trump doesn't even care if people die from coronavirus, other than if it affects his re-election chances. He literally said "we test too much," indicating that he cares more about optics than science. You think the Trump family gives a rip about a bunch of crazies on a tinnitus forum? You think he is capable of having empathy for a problem this nuanced? The guy thinks wind causes cancer. He thought the coronavirus would go away in the warm weather. You think he cares about hidden hearing loss and advocating for important scientific breakthroughs that require trust from the patient? lmao.

You are more hostile to the people who care about you than to the people who view you as trash. You are more hostile towards me, someone who has been suicidal for a year, unable to talk, whisper, laugh, exercise, leave the house, eat dinner with my wife, etc. than you are to Trump. Even in my deeply depressed state, I still love you and want you to keep fighting. It's unbelievable.

Honestly, I think if Trump had to choose between getting your vote, but never curing your tinnitus or curing your tinnitus and maybe winning your vote, he would most certainly choose the former.

Conservatives engage in cognitive dissonance. Trump plays his supporters like violins and somehow convinces them that others are the sheep. It's so sad to watch. I wish you well; no one should have to go through these conditions.

 

[Lane]

Trump literally plays his supporters like violins and somehow convinces them that others are the sheep. It's so sad to watch.

@Zugzug -- How somebody who stiffs small business owners as a routine part of business, and can get his populist leaning followers to believe he cares for them is truly mind-boggling. But perhaps not, when you consider all the other insanity he gets his followers to believe.

USA TODAY exclusive: Hundreds allege Donald Trump doesn't pay his bills

Donald Trump casts himself as a protector of workers and jobs, but a USA TODAY NETWORK investigation found hundreds of people – carpenters, dishwashers, painters, even his own lawyers – who say he didn't pay them for their work. Steve Reilly
USA TODAY

"Donald Trump often portrays himself as a savior of the working class who will "protect your job." But a USA TODAY NETWORK analysis found he has been involved in more than 3,500 lawsuits over the past three decades — and a large number of those involve ordinary Americans, like the Friels, who say Trump or his companies have refused to pay them..."​