Jump to content
Head Coach Openings 2024 ×
  • Current Donation Goals

    • Raised $2,716 of $3,600 target

The Democrat's roster for a Trump - beater in 2020


swordfish

Recommended Posts

24 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Hmm, so you admit your criticism of the electoral college was a fabrication, aka a lie.  Nice to admit it, isn't it?

 

I didn’t criticize it. I stated a fact concerning it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Feminists Who Now Claim They Never Meant 'Believe All Women' Are Gaslighting Us

https://reason.com/2020/05/19/believe-all-women-me-too-feminists-biden-reade/

Quote

The emergence of Tara Reade's accusation of sexual assault against presidential candidate and former Vice President Joe Biden has prompted the swift and sudden collapse of the #MeToo movement's central tenet—that all women who come forward with such allegations deserve to be believed.

In fact, some who speak for the movement aren't merely retreating on this point: They are pretending that feminists who wielded the #MeToo hashtag never claimed that all women should be believed. This is a transparent attempt to rewrite history and should be treated as such.

For a perfect example, see the journalist Susan Faludi in The New York Times: "'Believe All Women' Is a Right-Wing Trap," reads the headline on her article. Faludi accuses conservatives of inventing the idea that feminists were demanding that all women be believed. According to her, "the preferred hashtag of the #MeToo movement is #BelieveWomen. It's different without the 'all.' Believing women is simply the rejoinder to the ancient practice of #DoubtWomen."

"Good luck finding any feminist who thinks we should believe everything all women say—even what they say about sexual assault," Faludi continues. This directly contradicts her earlier admittal that she had in fact "encountered some feminists who seemed genuinely to subscribe" to the more extreme interpretation of the hashtag.

Faludi is narrowly right that "believe women" was the more popular phrasing among #MeToo activists, and that contrarians were more likely to introduce the word "all" as a means of pointing out how silly the concept was. But whether the phrase contains "all" is unimportant: It means the same thing, regardless. The command to believe group X is straightforwardly and obviously a plea to have faith in the entire collective entity. Faludi claims in her piece that "believe women" is actually the opposite of "believe all women," but this is absurd. She is, to use a term beloved by victims' rights advocates, gaslighting her readers.

One of Faludi's examples of a sensible "believe women" statement getting twisted into a "believe all women" attack was Juanita Broaddrick—who accused Bill Clinton of sexual assault—calling out Hillary Clinton for hypocrisy. Hillary had tweeted, "To every survivor of sexual assault … you have the right to be heard. You have the right to be believed." Faludi shames contrarians for cynically appending a "believe all victims" hashtag alongside a question mark, but it's right there in Clinton's initial tweet, between the words to and survivor. #MeToo advocates demanded a presumption of belief for every individual who claims to be a sexual misconduct victim: i.e., believe all women.

It was equally clear when Biden stated the mantra during the Brett Kavanaugh Supreme Court confirmation hearings: "For a woman to come forward in the glaring lights of focus, nationally, you've got to start off with the presumption that at least the essence of what she's talking about is real—whether or not she forgets facts, whether or not it's been made worse or better over time." Biden was clearly instructing the public to believe even the allegations that seem doubtful or flawed: The all is unstated but quite implicit.

The problem, of course, is that the implication of this mantra is ridiculous. We know that some women lie—not because they are women but because they are human beings, and human beings are capable of all sorts of deceptions, large and small. It's the task of journalists to consider claims, gather evidence, and help the public to make informed decisions. Belief is not really an aspect of this process.

In truth, believe-victims activists have been making generous use of the motte-and-bailey fallacy. This is a form of argument in which a person makes a strong, unreasonable, and indefensible claim—the bailey—and then falls back on an uncontroversial claim—the motte—when challenged. With "believe victims," the bailey position was something like what Biden and Clinton said: Presume that each and every alleged victim is telling the truth. The motte position is closer to this: Respect and support alleged victims, and don't automatically discount what they say. In the wake of Reade's allegations against him, Biden has unsurprisingly retreated to the motte.

The "respect and support" position obviously enjoys broad support—only the crueler corners of the internet would profess that victims should be mistreated and rejected as a general rule. To the extent that the #MeToo movement encouraged people to be more supportive and more open-minded when women accuse men of sexual assault, it has helped fix a great injustice. But the movement's sloganeering attracted well-deserved criticism, and the abandonment of the literal believe-victims standard is equally welcome and long overdue.

Let no one claim, however, that the mantra was some figment of the imagination, like the proverbial flickering gaslight.

 

  • Thanks 1
  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/15/2020 at 4:01 PM, TrojanDad said:

image.thumb.png.e78e61b5f54abaa94962a9de91312c40.png

https://www.the-sun.com/news/833743/gaffe-machine-joe-biden-millions-died-85000-jobs-coronavirus/

Watching this video...holy cow....wow.....that poor man is really, really struggling.......

If you don't have a problem with Trumps age and Gaffes. You shouldn't be going after Biden.

 

But you dont understand what a hypocrite is. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Ultimate Warrior said:

If you don't have a problem with Trumps age and Gaffes. You shouldn't be going after Biden.

Neither individual is fit for the White House. 

Vote third party, or don't vote at all.

Who currently has your vote for POTUS, UW?

 

  • Like 1
  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, TrojanDad said:

To be fair, Joe has had a LOT more time in public office to pile up the stats on gaffes. The ones in the video I posted from his 88 campaign are classic.. 😀 Now, if we want to compare the quality of the gaffes.....could be fun. 😂

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Irishman said:

To be fair, Joe has had a LOT more time in public office to pile up the stats on gaffes.

A career politician.  Another reason not to vote for Mr. Biden.

 

  • Like 2
  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Biden 2020 strategy gives Trump this massive opportunity

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/biden-2020-strategy-gives-trump-opportunity-ben-shapiro

Quote

In national polling, former Vice President Joe Biden is the clear 2020 front-runner. He's up nearly five points in the RealClearPolitics polling average; he's up in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida and Arizona.

That's because Biden campaigned as the anti-Bernie Sanders: a "return to normalcy" candidate rather than a transformational one. His entire pitch relied on his high name recognition, the general perception of his likability and his unthreatening demeanor.

The coronavirus pandemic merely underscored this pitch. Biden hasn't waned in the national polling since the pandemic — his lead has been utterly consistent. That's true even though Biden has been relegated to his basement, gaffing through completely anodyne statements about COVID-19, glitching his way to a few thousand viewers at a time, being interrupted by the birds honking outside his window.

How can a major party candidate win if nobody cares whether he's even alive?

Because Biden's candidacy isn't a referendum on Biden but on Trump: President Donald Trump is widely perceived as volatile, unstable, chaotic. Biden is perceived as somnambulant. Better a sleepwalker, many voters seem to think, than the rolling chaos of a second Trump term.

Yet somehow, the Biden campaign has decided to abandon Biden's greatest advantage: his promise of a sedated interregnum.

Instead, according to The New York Times, Biden's campaign will embrace radical proposals. "With Mr. Biden leading President Trump in the polls, the former vice president and other Democratic leaders are racing to assemble a new governing agenda that meets the extraordinary times — and they agree it must be far bolder than anything the party establishment has embraced before," The Times reported.

Some of the new proposals are directly from the Sanders campaign: forgiving student loans, a Green New Deal, expansion of government health care, a government jobs plan, a ban on stock buybacks and compulsion toward profit sharing for corporations.

Meanwhile, former President Barack Obama explained over the weekend that the coronavirus has merely underscored deep-seated American racism that requires a complete remaking of our society. Equating disparate health and incomes between black Americans and white Americans due to COVID-19 with the shooting of black Georgian Ahmaud Arbery — and citing both as legacies of America's historic racism — Obama stated, "No generation has been better positioned to be warriors for justice and remake the world."

But do Americans really want the world remade? Or are they simply longing for the world of four months ago, when unemployment stood at 3.5 percent, when incomes were rising at the lowest end of the income scale, when Americans could attend events without fear of infection and death?

Are Americans truly desperate for a reshaping of our medical system, a universal basic income and trillions more in debt?

Biden seems to be betting on the latter. And that's idiocy of the highest order. It completely undermines his entire case for the nomination; it allows Trump to place the new radical agenda front and center, rather than his own foibles.

Biden's go-for-broke strategy is a massive opportunity for Trump — if Trump doesn't blow it.

 

 

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

A career politician.  Another reason not to vote for Mr. Biden.

 

I’d say the number of reasons not to vote for either one of them are too close to call also.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

59 minutes ago, Irishman said:

To be fair, Joe has had a LOT more time in public office to pile up the stats on gaffes. The ones in the video I posted from his 88 campaign are classic.. 😀 Now, if we want to compare the quality of the gaffes.....could be fun. 😂

Yes he has. 

I think thats what helped Trump in 2016 against Clinton. 

He wasnt a "politician" and she was, could easily attack her stances. 

Now in 2020, Itll be much easier for the Dem nominee to attack. 

Tax cut, his terrible handling of covid-19, the firing of IG's because they were doing their job, the mass corruption, the wall never being fully built, the attacks on healthcare and so on. 

 

When Biden wins in 2020, he won't run in 2024 and thats when you'll see even more fresh newer faces in both Democrat and Republican races.

Edited by Ultimate Warrior
Link to comment
Share on other sites

31 minutes ago, TrojanDad said:

Most of the articles are talking about fairly recent gaffes and the impact they are causing to his current campaign.  

Well thank gosh hes running against the most beatable incumbent in my life time. 

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Socialism FTW.   And your children and grandchildren will be paying for it.

 

 

You'll see expanded health care.

Cheaper college

RGB and Byer replaced by 2 new SCOTUS... Potentially Roberts/Thomas replaced too...which means Roe V Wade and Gay Marriage will be saved for a good portion of my life

I think you'll start to see the push for UBI too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Ultimate Warrior said:

You'll see expanded health care.

Cheaper college

RGB and Byer replaced by 2 new SCOTUS... Potentially Roberts/Thomas replaced too...which means Roe V Wade and Gay Marriage will be saved for a good portion of my life

I think you'll start to see the push for UBI too.

I'm looking forward to 65% income tax and $7.00 per gallon gas. 

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

30 minutes ago, Howe said:

I'm looking forward to 65% income tax and $7.00 per gallon gas. 

Exactly.  It's something like socialists just don't seem to think or care about.

 

32 minutes ago, Ultimate Warrior said:

You'll see expanded health care.

Cheaper college

I think you'll start to see the push for UBI too.

And how will it be payed for?  Taxing 'the rich'?   Just printing more money, aka Modern Monetary Theory?

 

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, Muda69 said:

Exactly.  It's something like socialists just don't seem to think or care about.

 

And how will it be payed for?  Taxing 'the rich'?   Just printing more money, aka Modern Monetary Theory?

 

Why are you calling me a socialist? Cause I'm not one. 

Heres Andrew Yang's plan. 

 

 
Home
 
 
 
 

The Freedom Dividend, Defined

Share

 

In the next 12 years, 1 out of 3 American workers are at risk of losing their jobs to new technologies—and unlike with previous waves of automation, this time new jobs will not appear quickly enough in large enough numbers to make up for it. To avoid an unprecedented crisis, we’re going to have to find a new solution, unlike anything we’ve done before. It all begins with the Freedom Dividend, a universal basic income for all American adults, no strings attached – a foundation on which a stable, prosperous, and just society can be built.

Why Universal Basic Income?

How we pay for the Freedom Dividend

Isn't $1000/Month a Form of Socialism

  • expand_moreWhat is the Freedom Dividend?
     
  • expand_moreWhy does Andrew Yang want to implement the Freedom Dividend in America
     
  • expand_moreWho would get the Freedom Dividend in Andrew Yang's plan?
     
  • expand_lessHow would we pay for the Freedom Dividend?

    It would be easier than you might think. Andrew proposes funding the Freedom Dividend by consolidating some welfare programs and implementing a Value Added Tax of 10 percent. Current welfare and social program beneficiaries would be given a choice between their current benefits or $1,000 cash unconditionally – most would prefer cash with no restriction.

    A Value Added Tax (VAT) is a tax on the production of goods or services a business produces. It is a fair tax and it makes it much harder for large corporations, who are experts at hiding profits and income, to avoid paying their fair share. A VAT is nothing new. 160 out of 193 countries in the world already have a Value Added Tax or something similar, including all of Europe which has an average VAT of 20 percent.

    The means to pay for the basic income will come from four sources:

    1. Current spending: We currently spend between $500 and $600 billion a year on welfare programs, food stamps, disability and the like. This reduces the cost of the Freedom Dividend because people already receiving benefits would have a choice between keeping their current benefits and the $1,000, and would not receive both.

    Additionally, we currently spend over 1 trillion dollars on health care, incarceration, homelessness services and the like. We would save $100 – 200+ billion as people would be able to take better care of themselves and avoid the emergency room, jail, and the street and would generally be more functional. The Freedom Dividend would pay for itself by helping people avoid our institutions, which is when our costs shoot up. Some studies have shown that $1 to a poor parent will result in as much as $7 in cost-savings and economic growth.

    2. A VAT: Our economy is now incredibly vast at $19 trillion, up $4 trillion in the last 10 years alone. A VAT at half the European level would generate $800 billion in new revenue. A VAT will become more and more important as technology improves because you cannot collect income tax from robots or software.

    3. New revenue: Putting money into the hands of American consumers would grow the economy. The Roosevelt Institute projected that the economy will grow by approximately $2.5 trillion and create 4.6 million new jobs. This would generate approximately $800 – 900 billion in new revenue from economic growth.

    4. Taxes on top earners and pollution: By removing the Social Security cap, implementing a financial transactions tax, and ending the favorable tax treatment for capital gains/carried interest, we can decrease financial speculation while also funding the Freedom Dividend. We can add to that a carbon fee that will be partially dedicated to funding the Freedom Dividend, making up the remaining balance required to cover the cost of this program

     

     

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Muda69 said:

And how will it be payed for?

*paid*

1 hour ago, Howe said:

I'm looking forward to 65% income tax and $7.00 per gallon gas. 

Fear mongering. It's what Trump Groupies do.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, gonzoron said:

Fear mongering. It's what Trump Groupies do.

Interesting perspective.

Perhaps fear mongering is responsible for the economic shutdown of most businesses in Indiana for a virus where 99.99976% of residents have not died.

  • Disdain 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Howe said:

Interesting perspective.

Perhaps fear mongering is responsible for the economic shutdown of most businesses in Indiana for a virus where 99.99976% of residents have not died.

Possibly. The Republicans ordered the economic shutdown. I don't have a percentage on how many of those are Trump Groupies.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Ultimate Warrior said:

Why are you calling me a socialist? Cause I'm not one. 

Heres Andrew Yang's plan. 

 

 
Home
 
 
 
 

The Freedom Dividend, Defined

Share

 

In the next 12 years, 1 out of 3 American workers are at risk of losing their jobs to new technologies—and unlike with previous waves of automation, this time new jobs will not appear quickly enough in large enough numbers to make up for it. To avoid an unprecedented crisis, we’re going to have to find a new solution, unlike anything we’ve done before. It all begins with the Freedom Dividend, a universal basic income for all American adults, no strings attached – a foundation on which a stable, prosperous, and just society can be built.

Why Universal Basic Income?

How we pay for the Freedom Dividend

Isn't $1000/Month a Form of Socialism

  • expand_moreWhat is the Freedom Dividend?
     
  • expand_moreWhy does Andrew Yang want to implement the Freedom Dividend in America
     
  • expand_moreWho would get the Freedom Dividend in Andrew Yang's plan?
     
  • expand_lessHow would we pay for the Freedom Dividend?

    It would be easier than you might think. Andrew proposes funding the Freedom Dividend by consolidating some welfare programs and implementing a Value Added Tax of 10 percent. Current welfare and social program beneficiaries would be given a choice between their current benefits or $1,000 cash unconditionally – most would prefer cash with no restriction.

    A Value Added Tax (VAT) is a tax on the production of goods or services a business produces. It is a fair tax and it makes it much harder for large corporations, who are experts at hiding profits and income, to avoid paying their fair share. A VAT is nothing new. 160 out of 193 countries in the world already have a Value Added Tax or something similar, including all of Europe which has an average VAT of 20 percent.

    The means to pay for the basic income will come from four sources:

    1. Current spending: We currently spend between $500 and $600 billion a year on welfare programs, food stamps, disability and the like. This reduces the cost of the Freedom Dividend because people already receiving benefits would have a choice between keeping their current benefits and the $1,000, and would not receive both.

    Additionally, we currently spend over 1 trillion dollars on health care, incarceration, homelessness services and the like. We would save $100 – 200+ billion as people would be able to take better care of themselves and avoid the emergency room, jail, and the street and would generally be more functional. The Freedom Dividend would pay for itself by helping people avoid our institutions, which is when our costs shoot up. Some studies have shown that $1 to a poor parent will result in as much as $7 in cost-savings and economic growth.

    2. A VAT: Our economy is now incredibly vast at $19 trillion, up $4 trillion in the last 10 years alone. A VAT at half the European level would generate $800 billion in new revenue. A VAT will become more and more important as technology improves because you cannot collect income tax from robots or software.

    3. New revenue: Putting money into the hands of American consumers would grow the economy. The Roosevelt Institute projected that the economy will grow by approximately $2.5 trillion and create 4.6 million new jobs. This would generate approximately $800 – 900 billion in new revenue from economic growth.

    4. Taxes on top earners and pollution: By removing the Social Security cap, implementing a financial transactions tax, and ending the favorable tax treatment for capital gains/carried interest, we can decrease financial speculation while also funding the Freedom Dividend. We can add to that a carbon fee that will be partially dedicated to funding the Freedom Dividend, making up the remaining balance required to cover the cost of this program

     

     

I thought Joe Biden is the Democratic front runner for the POTUS nomination, and Mr. Yang dropped out?

So Mr. Yang's plan to pay for all the new federal spending is to Tax The Rich and institute a VAT.   VAT's are a terrible idea for the American economy:

 

https://www.cato.org/publications/congressional-testimony/case-against-valueadded-tax

https://www.heritage.org/taxes/report/how-value-added-tax-would-harm-the-us-economy

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/vat-is-a-bad-idea-on-many-levels-2010-05-04

https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2015/03/30/why-the-vat-may-seem-good-in-theory-but-is-bad-in-reality/

https://fee.org/articles/value-added-taxes-make-it-easier-to-raise-taxes-thats-why-governments-love-them/

https://www.nationalreview.com/2015/11/value-added-tax-vat-rand-paul-ted-cruz/

 

  • Disdain 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...