Joe Biden beats Donald Trump, officially making Trump a one-term twice impeached, twice popular-vote losing president

[CitizenVectron]

26 minutes ago, sblfilms said:

Situations like playing video games inside your own home. Situations like eating a bowl of ice cream inside your own home. Situations like telling a police officer of the existence of your lawfully carried weapon during a traffic stop. Situations like walking around a store with merchandise that a white person gets scared of. Situations like being a 12 year old boy who gets ambushed in the park. 

This is the sort of thing white people just need to stop saying about black people and police encounters.

 

Please don't conflate what I said to "don't be black," or that I am participating in victim blaming. I will argue through hyperbole: Let's assume a killer was specifically killing people in a single park and was targeting people wearing red clothing. In that situation, it would not be victim blaming to advise people not to wear red while in that park. That would be advice on how to predict what another person (who can harm you) is going to do, and then modify your behaviour to avoid the harm. The blame still would lie on the killer. 

 

Obviously I am not black (or American) and cannot speak from the same place as those groups on this issue. But I know that many black parents have "the talk"  with their children about how to behave around police officers, how to avoid even being confronted by them, etc. Those parents aren't engaging in victim blaming either.

 

The fault lies with police in these situations, and imo the US would be a better place if all police officers were fired and replaced, and insurance/regulations put in place on all new officers. But until then (i.e. never), minorities are going to be targeting by police officers and people need to be aware. 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

 

[PaladinSolo]

Dems likely to gain 3 seats under a proportional map.

[Jwheel86]

2 hours ago, PaladinSolo said:

Dems likely to gain 3 seats under a proportional map.

NC Republicans will overturn this with a special election on State Constitutional Amendment, just watch. 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

https://www.forbes.com/sites/sallypipes/2019/10/28/bernie-sanders-was-lucky-he-didnt-have-his-heart-attack-in-a-single-payer-system/#1b1cb2f73caf

[SaysWho?]

Jeff Sessions considering run for his old seat

 

Quote

A Sessions comeback would face steep hurdles — chiefly, assuming he hasn't had a change of heart, the president. Trump castigated Sessions throughout most of his tenure, and a reprise of his Twitter assaults could quickly make a primary campaign untenable.

 

“There isn’t anyone who has fallen more out of favor with President Trump than Jeff Sessions. Whatever goodwill that might still exist for him among Alabama Republicans would evaporate after sustained Trump tweets," said one Republican steeped in the race who is unaffiliated with a candidate.

 

[SuperSpreader]

3 hours ago, SaysWho? said:

Jeff Sessions considering run for his old seat

 

 

No pls

[RedSoxFan9]

 

what are identical candidate Elizabeth Warren’s thoughts on this 

[Jason]

 

[RedSoxFan9]

 

corporate media isn’t biased 

[Anathema-]

Corporate media is excessively biased but their bias was something you no doubt appreciated in 2016.  You want to talk about bias, let's discuss how 800 year old Bernie Sanders is allowed to get off with a hero's origin story after a goddamn heart attack. It cuts both ways.

[SaysWho?]

Tim Ryan ending his presidential campaign slipped under the radar

[Guest]

18 minutes ago, SaysWho? said:

Tim Ryan ending his presidential campaign slipped under the radar

Related: Tim Ryan having a presidential campaign slipped under the radar

[SaysWho?]

Just now, sblfilms said:

Related: Tim Ryan having a presidential campaign slipped under the radar

 

His biggest moments in both debates are when he looked bad, so I'd say it was well noticed!

[thewhyteboar]

 

[Jason]

4 minutes ago, thewhyteboar said:

 

 

Probably to take advantage of Facebook letting declared candidates spread lies. 

[Jason]

 

[osxmatt]

Burn it all down.

[legend]

On 10/28/2019 at 4:27 PM, CitizenVectron said:

 

Please don't conflate what I said to "don't be black," or that I am participating in victim blaming. I will argue through hyperbole: Let's assume a killer was specifically killing people in a single park and was targeting people wearing red clothing. In that situation, it would not be victim blaming to advise people not to wear red while in that park. That would be advice on how to predict what another person (who can harm you) is going to do, and then modify your behaviour to avoid the harm. The blame still would lie on the killer. 

 

Obviously I am not black (or American) and cannot speak from the same place as those groups on this issue. But I know that many black parents have "the talk"  with their children about how to behave around police officers, how to avoid even being confronted by them, etc. Those parents aren't engaging in victim blaming either.

 

The fault lies with police in these situations, and imo the US would be a better place if all police officers were fired and replaced, and insurance/regulations put in place on all new officers. But until then (i.e. never), minorities are going to be targeting by police officers and people need to be aware. 

 

I'm sympathetic to what you're saying and was nodding along when I first read it, but I think the point @sblfilms may be making is that black people are already well aware that they need to proceed with caution (and do) and this stuff happens anyway. So to give them advice to be cautious suggests the advice giver doesn't really appreciate how bad the problem is and is being condescending in thinking they're giving useful advice. I can imagine the sarcastic reaction being "oh thank you for telling me that I should be cautious, I hadn't considered that before!"

[CitizenVectron]

2 hours ago, legend said:

 

I'm sympathetic to what you're saying and was nodding along when I first read it, but I think the point @sblfilms may be making is that black people are already well aware that they need to proceed with caution (and do) and this stuff happens anyway. So to give them advice to be cautious suggests the advice giver doesn't really appreciate how bad the problem is and is being condescending in thinking they're giving useful advice. I can imagine the sarcastic reaction being "oh thank you for telling me that I should be cautious, I hadn't considered that before!"

 

I would agree with that. I don't think the advice is racist or incorrect, but the delivery (especially coming from a position of priveledge) is condescending.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Quote

 

It has been said that Joe Biden’s supporters seem to want to pick up where the Democratic Party left off before President Trump’s election. Something similar can be said about the Buttigieg candidacy—the longer it goes on, the more it seems to reflect the concerns of a different political era. This may well be part of what endears him to his backers and donors from Wall Street and Silicon Valley. It also makes him one of the candidates least suited to our political moment.

 

[Massdriver]

https://amp.insider.com/barack-obama-slams-call-out-culture-young-not-activism-2019-10

Quote

 

He added: "I do get a sense sometimes now among certain young people, and this is accelerated by social media, that the way of me making change is to be as judgmental as possible about other people and that's enough.

"Like if I tweet or hashtag about how you didn't do something right, or used the wrong verb, then I can sit back and feel pretty good about myself because: 'Man, did you see how woke I was? I called you out.'"

 

 

[RedSoxFan9]

I wouldn’t be surprised if Pete switches parties in the next decade. If he was a “moderate Republican”, the media would shower him with praise. 

[mclumber1]

4 minutes ago, RedSoxFan9 said:

I wouldn’t be surprised if Pete switches parties in the next decade. If he was a “moderate Republican”, the media would shower him with praise. 

 

The media isn't mean or unkind to him now, but I get what you're saying.  If he or someone like him were the face of the gop, the part could stay relavent to people under 40 years old.

[Signifyin(g)Monkey]

1 hour ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

 

It all seems to boil down to the same question--can the Democrats win by running with their leftmost flank, or do they still need centrism to eke out electoral victories?

 

I think people pretend as if they know the answer, but no one really does.  If the Dems nominate Warren or Sanders to lead the ticket, the 2020 election might serve to answer the question for a long time to come.  If the leftmost candidates lose against a president as vulnerable as Trump, it'll be a pretty clear indicator that centrism is still necessary to peel off moderates, independents and swing voters.  If they win convincingly, it'll be clear there's more support for highly progressive policies than the 1970s, 80s and 90s made it seem.

 

Either way, given the country's demographics, the biggest long-term factor becomes whether the millenials move to the right or stay in the left lane they currently seem to occupy.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

3 minutes ago, Signifyin(g)Monkey said:

It all seems to boil down to the same question--can the Democrats win by running with their leftmost flank, or do they still need centrism to eke out electoral victories?

 

I think people pretend as if they know the answer, but no one really does.  If the Dems nominate Warren or Sanders to lead the ticket, the 2020 election might serve to answer the question for a long time to come.  If the leftmost candidates lose against a president as vulnerable as Trump, it'll be a pretty clear indicator that centrism is still necessary to peel off moderates, independents and swing voters.  If they win convincingly, it'll be clear there's more support for highly progressive policies than the 1970s, 80s and 90s made it seem.

 

Either way, given the country's demographics, the biggest long-term factor becomes whether the millenials move to the right or stay in the left lane they currently seem to occupy.

Gen X hasn't really moved right, but they also weren't as far left starting out as zoomers or millennials.

 

The biggest issue is if the neoliberals/"centrists" revolt if they don't get mayo or Biden similar to what happened in 72 with McGovern, or vice versa. Nominating a centrist would probably take a lot of enthusiasm out of the younger cohort who largely demand a bins fide progressive/leftist

[RedSoxFan9]

destroying your comedy career to become a shitty landlord is a good bit

[Signifyin(g)Monkey]

28 minutes ago, RedSoxFan9 said:

destroying your comedy career to become a shitty landlord is a good bit

Regardless, rent control generally doesn't work.  National rent control would be a terrible idea.

[mclumber1]

Rent control is dumb 

[Anathema-]

I find the arguments against national rent control to be persuasive. We can drive rent down by building over nimby objections. Landlords may often be scum but fixing the market is probably one of the more shortsighted feel-good policies there is.

[Jason]

7 minutes ago, Anathema- said:

I find the arguments against national rent control to be persuasive. We can drive rent down by building over nimby objections. Landlords may often be scum but fixing the market is probably one of the more shortsighted feel-good policies there is.

 

Quote

We don’t wish ill upon those who make our pancakes or our hats—why all the hatred for the nice people who make our houses and apartments?

Quote

The study also posits that the perceptions of developers as money-grubbing villains are made worse in supply-constrained, pricey, and tightly-regulated housing markets. When city policies and zoning regulations make development more difficult, the developers who prosper are more likely to be the richest, nastiest, and most aggressive. “Our system of land use regulations and permitting process—the complexity of it—has selected for people that can navigate that,” said Monkkonen. “They tend to be good at bending the rules and breaking the rules, or wealthy. We’ve created a system that selects for people who are more cutthroat.”

 

Cities are thus confronted with a paradox: Deregulating land use would allow developers unfettered access to space, letting them potentially wreak havoc on neighborhoods. But enacting policies that make development difficult only encourage more “evil” developers, which in turn makes developers seem more evil. From the report:

 

Quote

The result could be a self-fulfilling process that fulfills people’s worst expectations: communities suspicious of development clamp down on it, partly because they believe developers are rich and confrontational, and by clamping down they increase the probability that developers will be rich and confrontational.

 

This effect is particularly pronounced in markets where housing is out of reach for many of the area’s poorest residents—as in the Bay Area. Here, profiting off a project seems “morally inappropriate,” the study states, even if the end result is more affordable housing. This creates what Monkkonen and others call a “repugnant market.”

https://www.citylab.com/equity/2018/09/what-if-nimbys-hate-developers-more-than-housing/570169/

[Anathema-]

Yes, exactly. 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Landlords aren't always developers.

 

There real villain is restrictive zoning, as per usual, and those who want to uphold them. Bernie does have in his housing plan federal housing and transportation monies being contingent on zoning reform. As long as zoning reform hits the wealthiest first it's a great plan.

[Dodger]

Nobody gets mad at the people making your pancakes because you don't need pancakes. You do need a place to live though

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

20 minutes ago, Dodger said:

you don't need pancakes