Election 2020

[Teenwolf]

Ken, I've already admitted what you're accusing me of denying.

I've seen Biden show a reluctance to use proper names. You can attribute that reluctance to whatever you wish. I believe his reluctance is evidence of not having the mental capacity to keep names straight or to a fear within Biden that he will flub the names as he's done consistently through the campaign. Is that clear enough for you?

[revo]

No. Not being able to remember the names of people, places, or things is not in any way an intentional strategy. Twisting yourself into a pretzel to make it make sense is silly.

He's forgotten Obama's name multiple times publicly now. "President... my boss" was really brutal. You think that was intentional? Calling Bernie "the President" in the last debate, how about that? Saying his failing mental faculties is charming and folksy and denying anything is wrong is exactly like Trump. "He tells it like it is" has been used to describe both, despite Biden's blatant and consistent lying about his record.

I respect Revo's opinion, but allow me to be blunt. I think Biden's supporters at this stage are nuts. He's such a clear loser. The argument to support him, that he gets all the old black voters that would show up anyway, is obviously idiotic. You need a candidate to turn folks out, not turn them off. Millenials are the key. Biden won't get them out.

If he's such a clear loser, then why is he gaining steam in the polls among Dems, vs. Trump, etc?

You keep saying he's lost it, yet someone who's lost it wouldn't be able to give a 90 minute speech and/or participate in a 3-hour debate at all, regardless of having a moment or two when he or she screws something up. Obviously the guy ain't young, and I think everyone would argue that a 40-year old Biden would be preferable to a 75-year old Biden, but until the polls show otherwise, he's the best candidate as of today.

What's more concerning is that you continue to exhibit the same "Bernie or I'm taking my ball and going home" philosophy that gave us Trump in '16. As I've said from the beginning, I'm all in favor of whoever the Dem nominee is -- Biden, Bernie, Warren, whoever. Trump MUST lose. If during the primaries Biden still shows to have a 15% lead over Trump compared to 5% for Bernie, how can you not support him?

[Teenwolf]

If he's such a clear loser, then why is he gaining steam in the polls among Dems, vs. Trump, etc?

You keep saying he's lost it, yet someone who's lost it wouldn't be able to give a 90 minute speech and/or participate in a 3-hour debate at all, regardless of having a moment or two when he or she screws something up. Obviously the guy ain't young, and I think everyone would argue that a 40-year old Biden would be preferable to a 75-year old Biden, but until the polls show otherwise, he's the best candidate as of today.

What's more concerning is that you continue to exhibit the same "Bernie or I'm taking my ball and going home" philosophy that gave us Trump in '16. As I've said from the beginning, I'm all in favor of whoever the Dem nominee is -- Biden, Bernie, Warren, whoever. Trump MUST lose. If during the primaries Biden still shows to have a 15% lead over Trump compared to 5% for Bernie, how can you not support him?

Ask President Hillary, who crushed Trump in polling right up to and including election day. You're following the same polls that lead us off a cliff in 2016. That's why I refuse to follow along.

Edit to add: you continue to refuse to dig deeper into the numbers to see why Biden would lose. He doesnt have the black vote, he has the old-ass dedicated, blue no matter who black voters. Same as Hillary did! It will not get you there!

Warren would probably edge out Trump, but digging deeper into her numbers is also terrifying due to her lack of diversity within her coalition. I also support whoever is best set-up to beat Trump, but not at the expense of what I actually believe in. But you need to turn out and energize voters, something polling a year out has no ability to extrapolate.

[Ken]

Ken, I've already admitted what you're accusing me of denying.

I've seen Biden show a reluctance to use proper names. You can attribute that reluctance to whatever you wish.

*sigh*. I'm not attributing it to anything in particular, I was answering your strategy question. But nevermind. Not worth arguing about.

I believe his reluctance is evidence of not having the mental capacity to keep names straight or to a fear within Biden that he will flub the names as he's done consistently through the campaign.

Sure, I can see that.

Is that clear enough for you?

Not worth arguing, I don't think you were interested in a discussion here.

(And as a side note, we wonder why this "hyperpartisan" culture is so divisive - making a point about political strategy that has absolutely nothing to do with supporting one candidate or another and you're accused of "twisting yourself into a pretzel to make it make sense". Or if you do support a particular candidate you are labelled as "nuts" and "idiotic", even within the same party. When can we just have an open conversation about the topics without the bias and name calling? I guess that's asking too much. Hot button topics, sure, gotta go scorched earth and make sure everyone else is put in their place. Don't agree with me on everything = you must be a moron. That's really productive!)

[nots]

*sigh*. I'm not attributing it to anything in particular, I was answering your strategy question. But nevermind. Not worth arguing about.



Sure, I can see that.




Not worth arguing, I don't think you were interested in a discussion here.

(And as a side note, we wonder why this "hyperpartisan" culture is so divisive - making a point about political strategy that has absolutely nothing to do with supporting one candidate or another and you're accused of "twisting yourself into a pretzel to make it make sense". Or if you do support a particular candidate you are labelled as "nuts" and "idiotic", even within the same party. When can we just have an open conversation about the topics without the bias and name calling? I guess that's asking too much. Hot button topics, sure, gotta go scorched earth and make sure everyone else is put in their place. Don't agree with me on everything = you must be a moron. That's really productive!)

Your last paragraph is gold.

[Teenwolf]

*sigh*. I'm not attributing it to anything in particular, I was answering your strategy question. But nevermind. Not worth arguing about.



Sure, I can see that.




Not worth arguing, I don't think you were interested in a discussion here.

(And as a side note, we wonder why this "hyperpartisan" culture is so divisive - making a point about political strategy that has absolutely nothing to do with supporting one candidate or another and you're accused of "twisting yourself into a pretzel to make it make sense". Or if you do support a particular candidate you are labelled as "nuts" and "idiotic", even within the same party. When can we just have an open conversation about the topics without the bias and name calling? I guess that's asking too much. Hot button topics, sure, gotta go scorched earth and make sure everyone else is put in their place. Don't agree with me on everything = you must be a moron. That's really productive!)

Asking if I've clarified my point to a satisfactory level is somehow offensive to you? Saying "I dont think you're interested in a discussion here"...??? What the fuck did we just do, making our points? I believe we actually came to some agreement. So what's the issue?

I see nothing that I said that was personally insulting to you or any other member of this board, I state my opinion. The constant offense taking around here is so boring. Find a new hobby.

[Ken]

Asking if I've clarified my point to a satisfactory level is somehow offensive to you?

Nope, not offended

Saying "I dont think you're interested in a discussion here"...???

Yes, that is what I said.

You noted that there wasn't a strategy in avoiding saying your political opponents' names. I disagreed and told you why, and your responses was about Biden misremembering things. You weren't actually interested in a discussion about political strategy, even though you brought it up. But that's fine. Move on.

What the fuck did we just do, making our points? I believe we actually came to some agreement. So what's the issue?

Well there are lots of issues, hence 243 pages of discussion. But in this case my issue with your particular points was the moving goalposts and accusations of "twisting" when I was simply making a political strategy point.

You get really defensive TW. Sometimes it's okay to just talk about topics without trying to bite someone's head off simply because the topic at hand doesn't support your favorite candidate or support your particular narrative.

I see nothing that I said that was personally insulting to you or any other member of this board, I state my opinion.

Cool. Honestly I would expect no different from you.

The constant offense taking around here is so boring.

Who took offense? I'm dubious about the methods you use, they aren't very productive. You'd be a lot more successful expressing your points if your goal was to explain it in detail and then listen to those who disagree rather than berating them. And you are extremely closed minded - if anything doesn't fit your preconceived bias then it is "idiotic". You'd have much better conversations if you'd actually listen.

But offended? Nah, I'm not offended. I have much more important things to be thinking about than your ranting and raving on a message board. It doesn't "offend" me. You give yourself far too much credit.

Now does it speak to the hyperpartisan bullshit that we see everywhere? Absolutely. And that's the sad part. Your hyper-reactive over the top closed minded attitude and brash lashing out against those who disagree with any point you are trying to make is very representative of the current culture. And THAT part is toxic. How do we address that as the election comes up? Now there's a topic worth discussing and one that's interesting. But I doubt that discussion point gets much traction. Maybe it supports Biden (oh no!)

Find a new hobby.

I'm good, thanks though. I have several hobbies I enjoy.

[Teenwolf]

Ken, when you reacted to Tyler Skaggs' overdose death by berating others for suggesting it was an overdose, you showed who you really are. You even degrade drug users in the thread by stating that Skaggs was thought to have "good character". You just want something new to get offended over, always. Whining over me stating my opinions about the police, or ambivalence towards dead billionaire scumbags, or my statements about politicians or their base of supporters... it's boring.

We get it. You're a god-fearing person who believes he's standing up for the little guy, while constantly attacking and berating others for crossing some moral boundary. I'm sure I'm not the only one bored by it.

Back on topic, you gave me a theory as to why Biden is hesitant to use proper names. Your theory is that Biden doesn't want to increase the name recognition of the candidates on stage with him directly to his left and right, is that correct? My opinion, is that your theory makes no sense as part of any intentional strategy, whatsoever. I'm not saying you're dumb, and I'm not saying the theory you've put forward wouldn't absolutely make sense in some contexts. But if you ignore the context of his other mental failings in coming up with this obtuse name-avoidance strategy theory... I'm saying you're making a lot of large logical leaps not supported by reality.

[Ken]

Ken, when you reacted to Tyler Skaggs' overdose death by berating others for suggesting it was an overdose, you showed who you really are.

Did I? Accusing someone of being culpable in their own death without any evidence is a good idea? So if your best friend died tomorrow and the news headlines were "Druggie likely killed himself overdosing, he wasn't very bright and chose risky behaviors that led to his own demise, what a moron", you think that's fair? OK. I guess we disagree. Degrade the dead! Nothing off limits. No morality to follow. Just berate everyone. Great plan.

Feel free to PM me if you have anything else to say on this - it has NOTHING to do with Election 2020. But otherwise I'll assume the topic closed.

You even degrade drug users in the thread by stating that Skaggs was thought to have "good character".

Drug addictions are bad. I have had close friends and relatives destroyed by their own drug additions. All additions are bad. There I said it! I know, very edgy of me to hate addition.

You just want something new to get offended over, always.

Heh, you don't read too well, I was never offended. But carry on with your rant!

Whining over me stating my opinions about the police, or ambivalence towards dead billionaire scumbags, or my statements about politicians or their base of supporters... it's boring.

You keep using this word "boring". My goal is not to entertain you (** thank goodness **). If you are bored, go play a video game or whatever it is you do. I disagree with you on a lot of topics. So what? I'm fine with that. Apparently you aren't?

We get it. You're a god-fearing person who believes he's standing up for the little guy

Nah, that's actually not anything like me, one of my biggest struggles is how to be better at standing up for the "little guy". I'm not good at it at all. But I'd love to improve in that area.
You're way off the mark. But carry on with your rant. If it fits your rant it must be true!!

, while constantly attacking and berating others for crossing some moral boundary.

Hmm, my criticism of your approach is that you are failing in getting your point across due to berating people and calling them "idiotic", and your response is that I attack too much.... okay if you say so.

I'm sure I'm not the only one bored by it.

Pretty sure people can speak for themselves. But if they are bored, I can't imagine bringing up Tyler Skaggs in an election thread is their idea of entertainment. But carry on, I don't want to stop you while you are on a roll!

Back on topic, you gave me a theory as to why Biden is hesitant to use proper names.

Specifically why any politician would, yes.

Your theory is that Biden doesn't want to increase the name recognition of the candidates on stage with him directly to his left and right, is that correct?

Nope, that's you misreading.. yet again. My theory is that what you just described would be a good political strategy. Not that it is what he is doing.

My opinion, is that your theory makes no sense as part of any intentional strategy, whatsoever. I'm not saying you're dumb, and I'm not saying the theory you've put forward wouldn't absolutely make sense in some contexts.

Nice - care to explain? Or are you just throwing it out there to argue?
You think that saying your opponents names somehow doesn't give them more name recognition? That's an opinion, I guess. Care to back it up?

But if you ignore the context of his other mental failings in coming up with this obtuse name-avoidance strategy theory... I'm saying you're making a lot of large logical leaps not supported by reality.

See that's your big problem, you didn't actually read what I said. I get why you always get so upset and rage. You don't actually read and comprehend the topic first. You are in such a big rush to rage that you don't stop and think about what is being presented.

There was no "context" that's topical. I was discussing the idea as a political strategy in the abstract. I'm not sure why that is so hard to grasp.

[Sour Masher]

All additions are bad. There I said it! I know, very edgy of me to hate addition.

I gotta say, I am shocked, shocked I say, to see this kind of arithmophobia on these boards--from you of all people, Ken!

Sorry, I know this is a heated and serious exchange, but I couldn't help myself on this one .

[Teenwolf]

Suggesting that Biden is reluctant to address Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren by their proper names when they're on the stage directly to his left and right, names being spoken constantly by everybody else in the room, moderators, other candidates, etc... in order to keep their name recognition down?

That's one of the dumbest and most far fetched theories anybody could possibly come up with. But you're right, Ken, it is a theory!

[Teenwolf]

I gotta say, I am shocked, shocked I say, to see this kind of arithmophobia on these boards--from you of all people, Ken!

Sorry, I know this is a heated exchange, but I couldn't help myself on this one .

I think saying that drug addicts are "bad characters" is fucking gross and not something to joke about, but whatevs.

[Ken]

i gotta say, i am shocked, shocked i say, to see this kind of arithmophobia on these boards--from you of all people, ken!

Sorry, i know this is a heated and serious exchange, but i couldn't help myself on this one .

lol!!!

[Sour Masher]

I think saying that drug addicts are "bad characters" is fucking gross and not something to joke about, but whatevs.

Oh, the irony of you being offended by my math joke given you just called out Ken for constantly looking for something to be offended by is just too precious not to acknowledge!

[nots]

Oh, the irony of you being offended by my math joke given you just called out Ken for constantly looking for something to be offended by is just too precious not to acknowledge!

+1 for you Sour