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

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

Furthermore, I firmly reject the premise that Trump is some type of historical/political aberration whose time will be over in January 2025 and we can go back to "normalcy" - a condition which will be neither possible or desirable.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

7 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

Furthermore, I firmly reject the premise that Trump is some type of historical/political aberration whose time will be over in January 2025 and we can go back to "normalcy" - a condition which will be neither possible or desirable.

Normalcy can only be seen in the past through Rose colored glasses. Normalcy to libs is the same fucking thing as make America great again to chuds

[SuperSpreader]

29 minutes ago, SFLUFAN said:

Pessimism in the face of insurmountable odds doesn't mean that one gives up or stops fighting.  All it means is that you're now fighting for your own personal honor and self-worth rather than some larger hope of making things better. 

 

In other words, you do your damnedest to have a "good death"!

I dislike that I get told to be more optimistic and positive. As if denying half my spectrum of human emotion is healthy, natural, or productive. Negativity is a huge motivator for me and part of what makes me alive.

[Massdriver]

I think the degree of pessimism here is unjustified relative to what's factual. It's not just that I want people to be more optimistic just for health reasons. I think some here have a distorted view of reality that is far darker than what's actually happening. I'm fairly cynical myself, but some here are taking it so bad that they are amplifying the bad beyond what's there. These times are fairly good by historical standards, and while the American voting public is disappointing me with Trump, there is time to turn things around. 

 

I don't think Trumpism is going away. It's something we will be dealing with for decades. But that doesn't mean the game is up. Eventually things will align against them. In the meantime, I think the people have made progress looking at issues like climate change, healthcare, criminal justice, and many other issues with a more progressive tilt and it will result in changes on the state and local level even if we regress on the Federal. It will eventually happen on the Federal level too.

 

Looking at Texas, I see some things happening here ahead of schedule. 2018 really showed that this state has changed and Trump's grip is starting to wither. Take a look at the money flowing into state rep races here and in other states. Democrats are learning from their stupidity of ignoring state power.  When Democrats take over the Federal government again, I suspect it will be from a more organic base of support from the local level on up. If Democrats start turning on each other and creating purity tests, I think that's the bigger threat to their future than the GOP.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

55 minutes ago, Massdriver said:

. If Democrats start turning on each other and creating purity tests

This is already happening, but not in the way you are thinking.

 

So called purity tests are elites being pressured in ways that they don't like by the base, and is often a shield against legitimate criticism of dependence on corporate power or corruption. Having values isn't purity. Just stand for something other than a nebulous, ever changing "moderation" for the sake of "moderation" (which only seems to moderate to the right)

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

 

[Anathema-]

Bernie, an actual candidate, has not committed to supporting the nominee if it's not him but it's Clinton who everyone is taking about. This whole damn forum needs to check itself.

[GeneticBlueprint]

3 minutes ago, Anathema- said:

Bernie, an actual candidate, has not committed to supporting the nominee if it's not him but it's Clinton who everyone is taking about. This whole damn forum needs to check itself.

 

He did so in the last debate.

 

Quote

“Let me be very clear,” said Sanders (I-Vt.). “If any of the women on this stage or any of the men on this stage win the nomination — I hope that’s not the case, I hope it’s me — but if they do, I will do everything in my power to make sure that they are elected in order to defeat the most dangerous president in the history of our country.”

 

He also vocally supported Clinton in 2016 after she secured the nomination.

[Jason]

3 minutes ago, GeneticBlueprint said:

 

He did so in the last debate.

 

 

He also vocally supported Clinton in 2016 after she secured the nomination.

 

grr grr berniebros grrrrrr

[Anathema-]

Oh I'm sorry I didn't realize he caught up to party politics last week.

 

I think the clear reading of the 2016 campaign would show a shameful lack of support but be that as it may there's still more being demanded of Clinton (not running) than Sanders (actively running). She didn't immediately commit to support, same thing Sanders did to her all the way until the convention voted, but it's Clinton needs to unify? Give me a break.

[Guest]

@Anathema- shifted gears there with the grace of a teenager learning to drive stick  

[Jason]

4 minutes ago, Anathema- said:

Oh I'm sorry I didn't realize he caught up to party politics last week.

 

I think the clear reading of the 2016 campaign would show a shameful lack of support but be that as it may there's still more being demanded of Clinton (not running) than Sanders (actively running). She didn't immediately commit to support, same thing Sanders did to her all the way until the convention voted, but it's Clinton needs to unify? Give me a break.

 

[GeneticBlueprint]

Has Sanders ever flat out said that he would not support the nominee? Like, was he ever asked and said "No"? Because after his support of Clinton in 2016 I don't think anybody could honestly question whether he would or not. If he has stated otherwise please correct me. And I'm asking about Sanders specifically, not Bernie Bros (who yes, can be fucking irritating).

 

Regardless, Clinton has repeatedly made her disdain for Sanders evident.

[Joe]

I don't think you need to be a berniebro to think Clinton is a fucking moron for making those statements, even if you think much of what she said is true.

[GeneticBlueprint]

Just now, Jose said:

I don't think you need to be a berniebro to think Clinton is a fucking moron for making those statements, even if you think much of what she said is true.

 

Exactly. I was agreeing with a lot of what she said. While at the same time thinking these were all things that she was saying about him in 2016. For somebody who commands as much attention as she does, saying these things again right now is about as thick-skulled as you can get if your primary goal is to beat Donald Trump. I am also irritated by the treatment she has received and continues to receive at the hands of the most left of leftists. So I can understand wanting to lash back.

[Anathema-]

6 minutes ago, Jose said:

I don't think you need to be a berniebro to think Clinton is a fucking moron for making those statements, even if you think much of what she said is true.

 

You don't need to be a Clinton fan to see the obsession with her as sick. Every new sensational statement from her is out of context and this board doesn't even seem to want to learn that. There's too much camaraderie done in the name of tearing down Hillary Clinton and apparently that's harder to kick than cocaine. This board is absolutely fucking addicted.

[Jason]

Just now, Anathema- said:

You don't need to be a Clinton fan to see the obsession with her as sick.

 

Nobody made her say what she said today.

 

1 minute ago, Anathema- said:

Every new sensational statement from her is out of context

 

What possible context could redeem what she said today?

[Anathema-]

I mean nobody even thinks it's strange that we attribute statements to her that are actually answers to questions she was prompted with and that everyone gets bent out of shape over something that sounds very different in the full context. 

 

Every.

 

Single.

 

Time.

 

Either nobody's caught on or there's a sick pleasure taken in joining hands to condemn someone who's consistently correct. Enough.

[Anathema-]

Point of fact if you find yourself jumping into the glee pile to harp on Hillary Clinton with Jason, reevaluate.

[Joe]

4 minutes ago, Anathema- said:

 

You don't need to be a Clinton fan to see the obsession with her as sick. Every new sensational statement from her is out of context and this board doesn't even seem to want to learn that. There's too much camaraderie done in the name of tearing down Hillary Clinton and apparently that's harder to kick than cocaine. This board is absolutely fucking addicted.

 

This is different than Jason posting an attack on her every time she sneezes though, at least in my opinion. She directly attacked a serious contender for the Democratic nomination. No context can justify that, though I do hope there is context. 

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

No one would give a shit about her here if she was just promoting her video or whatever and said she'd support the eventual nominee. Well maybe Jason he likes to stir the pot a bit. But she didn't do that, she decided to attack one of the two frontrunners less than two weeks before the Iowa caucus.

[Anathema-]

1 minute ago, Jose said:

 

This is different than Jason posting an attack on her every time she sneezes though, at least in my opinion. She directly attacked a serious contender for the Democratic nomination. No context can justify that, though I do hope there is context. 

She was asked if she's going to support him as the nominee and she said she didn't want to comment while the primary was under way but has a problem with him either encouraging or allowing his surrogates to attack people while he pretends he's not doing that.

[Anathema-]

Just now, Anathema- said:

She was asked if she's going to support him as the nominee and she said she didn't want to comment while the primary was under way but has a problem with him either encouraging or allowing his surrogates to attack people while he pretends he's not doing that.

 

Of course this doesn't sound like what people are replying to because they've made it up in their heads that it was an attack because everyone loves dog piling on Clinton and don't think twice when her biggest detractors lead them off that cliff.

[Jason]

1 minute ago, Anathema- said:

 

Of course this doesn't sound like what people are replying to because they've made it up in their heads that it was an attack because everyone loves dog piling on Clinton and don't think twice when her biggest detractors lead them off that cliff.

 

Yeah man everyone knows @SaysWho? is such a rabid anti-Hillary guy.

[Guest]

HRC is no dummy and she understands politics quite well. There is no such thing as an innocuous answer to a question, these folks think long and hard about everything they say and are well prepared for what will be asked of them. And THAT is the thing she wanted to communicate, that Sanders has no friends and created a toxic culture around his campaign. I have a hard time believing anybody doesn’t think this was an attack. Maybe you think it’s fair, but it’s unambiguously an attack on the man and his candidacy.

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

What a load of shit

 

The only answer is "I don't know who the nominee is, but my number one priority is removing Donald Trump from the presidency, and whomever is the nominee, I will support"

[Joe]

Wait, we aren't talking about the whole Bernie has no friends thing?

[b_m_b_m_b_m]

Just now, Jose said:

Wait, we aren't talking about the whole Bernie has no friends thing?

There's a lot of people who see that as a good thing

[Anathema-]

1 minute ago, sblfilms said:

HRC is no dummy and she understands politics quite well. There is no such thing as an innocuous answer to a question, these folks think long and hard about everything they say and are well prepared for what will be asked of them. And THAT is the thing she wanted to communicate, that Sanders has no friends and created a toxic culture around his campaign. I have a hard time believing anybody doesn’t think this was an attack. Maybe you think it’s fair, but it’s unambiguously an attack on the man and his candidacy.

 

Yeah, she doesn't want him to become the nominee. That doesn't seem unfair.

 

She's calling into question real problems with his leadership. Again, not unfair.

 

She's also calling into question his primary dodge for his plan to get legislation passed: he's never made good relationships in Congress.  Hardly unfair.

 

You can characterize these things as "attacks" if you want but Sanders said far worse about her and never got the same pleas to unify and vitriol for saying less than 100% good things.

 

She was asked a question, she responded fairly and truthfully. If Sanders' campaign for president collapses after one former politician calls him to account for his team then he's not good enough to be president. Simple as that.

[Commissar SFLUFAN]

I rest my case, your honor.

[Jwheel86]

38 minutes ago, Anathema- said:

Oh I'm sorry I didn't realize he caught up to party politics last week.

 

I think the clear reading of the 2016 campaign would show a shameful lack of support but be that as it may there's still more being demanded of Clinton (not running) than Sanders (actively running). She didn't immediately commit to support, same thing Sanders did to her all the way until the convention voted, but it's Clinton needs to unify? Give me a break.

 

I mean fighting her to the convention made sense given the very real possibility she might get indicted. 

[Jason]

3 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

What a load of shit

 

The only answer is "I don't know who the nominee is, but my number one priority is removing Donald Trump from the presidency, and whomever is the nominee, I will support"

 

BuT HiLlArY WaS TrEaTeD UnFaIrLy

[Anathema-]

1 minute ago, Jwheel86 said:

 

I mean fighting her to the convention made sense given the very real possibility she might get indicted. 

 

That... Was not a real possibility.

[Anathema-]

4 minutes ago, Jose said:

Wait, we aren't talking about the whole Bernie has no friends thing?

 

Even now the context has evaporated and all original meaning has been lost. "Bernie has made no positive relationships in the Senate so I doubt he can get his agenda enacted," has put the words "Bernie has no friends," in her mouth.  Already we have to pretend that's what she said and the documentary isn't even out.

[Anathema-]

12 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said:

What a load of shit

 

The only answer is "I don't know who the nominee is, but my number one priority is removing Donald Trump from the presidency, and whomever is the nominee, I will support"

 

Or she's allowed to treat Bernie how he treated her? If Bernie can't get the nomination without Clinton being silent then (once again) he doesn't deserve it. A strong campaign wouldn't need her and could overcome her. Bernie isn't owed anything.