Jump to content
270soft Forum

Today might be the day


Recommended Posts

21 minutes ago, vcczar said:

It's Kamala Harris

 

19 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

Yep, it's official.

Welcome to the team, Harris.  Now, let's go win.

 

19 minutes ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

I heard it already, as I see Dana Bash speaking (I switched the channel).

No surprise, one of the worst choices for me. 

 

5 minutes ago, billay said:

What an awful choice 

Well, I guess it's official. Biden has made the grave error, typical of the arrogant, detached, ivory tower, plutocratic, self-righteous Establishment, of locking the Progressives, who are visibly, vocally, and actively showing overt disgust right now with the "system," and how it works, and whose votes and support he depends on to win, off of the ticket and put a flimsy "Uncle Tom," candidate strongly tied to a major part of the visible issues by the Progressives - the unjust and over-draconian law-enforcement, judicial, and correctional systems. What a disgustingly stupid and tactless move that effectively gives the finger to the Progressive branch - possibly just to spite Sanders and Warren, personally. No chance of a decent candidate sorely needed by the nation, or any redeeming quality for advancement or betterment coming out of this election. Yet another U.S. Presidential Election, like 1852, 1920, 1968, 2004, and 2016, where no candidate "with a chance of winning," will be worthy of winning, or anything but a villain or a failure. The last nail in any good coming from this election has now been made.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 77
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

The 270soft board correctly predicted Biden's Veep nominee pick! http://270soft.ipbhost.com/topic/17672-biden-picks-vp-in-a-week/ 51% said it would be Harris in a poll done in July. @He

Well, I guess it's official. Biden has made the grave error, typical of the arrogant, detached, ivory tower, plutocratic, self-righteous Establishment, of locking the Progressives, who are visibly, vo

Say what you want, at least it will help Biden win the swing state of California. 🤣

@Patine I agree very much with you here. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I preferred Duckworth. But I'm ready to defend Harris to the last. Its time to get to work. #BidenHarris2020

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hestia11 said:

I preferred Duckworth. But I'm ready to defend Harris to the last. Its time to get to work. #BidenHarris2020

I will never defend anyone based on "partisan loyalty," alone. Though a big NDP supporter, I could not support an unethical and untrustworthy slug who might be a closet Separatist like Mulcair in 2015, for instance. If I lived in the United States, it would be another Third Party or Independent vote, like I said I would have voted for De La Fuente in 2016. That's what it come down to. But "socio-political and ideological conviction," while a defining feature of many admire politicians globally, seems to be a weak point in American politics and society.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Patine said:

I will never defend anyone based on "partisan loyalty," alone. Though a big NDP supporter, I could not support an unethical and untrustworthy slug who might be a closet Separatist like Mulcair in 2015, for instance. If I lived in the United States, it would be another Third Party or Independent vote, like I said I would have voted for De La Fuente in 2016. That's what it come down to. But "socio-political and ideological conviction," while a defining feature of many admire politicians globally, seems to be a weak point in American politics and society.

Harris is the VP that we need right now. I would rather not have conversion therapy supporting Mike Pence as Vice President. And no third party can win an election in the US, regardless of anything you think or say. Its impossible the way it is right now. So my left leaning person is all in for Biden and Harris.

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Hestia11 said:

Harris is the VP that we need right now. I would rather not have conversion therapy supporting Mike Pence as Vice President. And no third party can win an election in the US, regardless of anything you think or say. Its impossible the way it is right now. So my left leaning person is all in for Biden and Harris.

See, binary socio-political viewpoints just frustrate me, and being told if "I don't support one side fully, I'm by default supporting the other." That's MADNESS as I see it, and highly dystopian. Maybe you can't seen it, but I see no good or advancement or betterment coming of it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Patine said:

See, binary socio-political viewpoints just frustrate me, and being told if "I don't support one side fully, I'm by default supporting the other." That's MADNESS as I see it, and highly dystopian. Maybe you can't seen it, but I see no good or advancement or betterment coming of it.

It is highly reasonable and it is honestly a narrow minded view and a bit "Im better than you" view to say that my thinking is dystopian. The country will progress with Biden and Harris in charge. It will not with Trump. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Patine said:

See, binary socio-political viewpoints just frustrate me, and being told if "I don't support one side fully, I'm by default supporting the other." That's MADNESS as I see it, and highly dystopian. Maybe you can't seen it, but I see no good or advancement or betterment coming of it.

I think it’s hilarious that you decry the “binary” political system when you are the most binary person I’ve ever “met”.

Everything is either perfect or evil.  And since nothing can actually be perfect...

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Hestia11 said:

It is highly reasonable and it is honestly a narrow minded view and a bit "Im better than you" view to say that my thinking is dystopian. The country will progress with Biden and Harris in charge. It will not with Trump. 

No it wont

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, billay said:

No it wont

It will. And you have offered nothing to contest that opinion so I dont feel like I need to answer either.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Actinguy said:

I think it’s hilarious that you decry the “binary” political system when you are the most binary person I’ve ever “met”.

Everything is either perfect or evil.  And since nothing can actually be perfect...

You obviously don't understand my viewpoint, but are incorrectly and clumsily paraphrasing in absolutist misinterpretations to serve your point. Basically, the kind of gross misinterpretation to slander and discredit people done by Fox News "Personality Driven News Show," hosts.

 

5 minutes ago, Hestia11 said:

It is highly reasonable and it is honestly a narrow minded view and a bit "Im better than you" view to say that my thinking is dystopian. The country will progress with Biden and Harris in charge. It will not with Trump. 

I am not at all convinced a hard Establishment, mentally failing, Bush Administration Policy supporting Senator and a prosecutor deeply involved and behind a lot of the law-and-order abuses that are one of the biggest gripes of the Progressives at the moment, will, while probably being an improvement on Trump and Pence (which is a pretty low bar), that one can expect, realistically to actually progress and advance the nation in the ways in truly needs to be, outside of digging out of the latrine pit left by the Trump Administration. And I do not consider a locked and unchallengeable two-party system to ever be "highly reasonable," and it shows a blind parochial and nationalistic arrogance to say it is "a narrow minded view and a bit "Im better than you" view to say that my thinking is dystopian," as no locked two-party is EVER TRULY good for the people or nation involved, be it the United States, may Anglo-Caribbean Nations, Portugal, Pakistan, Taiwan, pre-Election Reform Act UK, pre-Rise of the Progressive Party Canada, etc. - and all of them have some form of electoral rigging or suppression and/or institutional corruption to keep their own Duopolies in place - methods, in fact, that make those governments and parties criminal organizations not worthy of legitimately governing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Patine said:

You obviously don't understand my viewpoint, but are incorrectly and clumsily paraphrasing in absolutist misinterpretations to serve your point. Basically, the kind of gross misinterpretation to slander and discredit people done by Fox News "Personality Driven News Show," hosts.

 

I am not at all convinced a hard Establishment, mentally failing, Bush Administration Policy supporting Senator and a prosecutor deeply involved and behind a lot of the law-and-order abuses that are one of the biggest gripes of the Progressives at the moment, will, while probably being an improvement on Trump and Pence (which is a pretty low bar), that one can expect, realistically to actually progress and advance the nation in the ways in truly needs to be, outside of digging out of the latrine pit left by the Trump Administration. And I do not consider a locked and unchallengeable two-party system to ever be "highly reasonable," and it shows a blind parochial and nationalistic arrogance to say it is "a narrow minded view and a bit "Im better than you" view to say that my thinking is dystopian," as no locked two-party is EVER TRULY good for the people or nation involved, be it the United States, may Anglo-Caribbean Nations, Portugal, Pakistan, Taiwan, pre-Election Reform Act UK, pre-Rise of the Progressive Party Canada, etc. - and all of them have some form of electoral rigging or suppression and/or institutional corruption to keep their own Duopolies in place - methods, in fact, that make those governments and parties criminal organizations not worthy of legitimately governing.

The fact that you think that I'm blindly parochial and exhibit nationalistic arrogance is insane. At this point, it's not worth discussing with you since you shut down all of my arguments as to why I support what I support inside the US. I want electoral reform badly. I wish I lived in Canada or the UK or Germany where parties had to fight for my support. But unfortunately that's just not how it works in the US, and I hope that it begins to change as time goes on, and the systems around the world become more understood by the people of the United States. But I will never support the Republican Party's attacks on health care, social security, and other things in my lifetime, which makes me a Democrat by choice. In the UK, if I were in England, I would be a Green/Lib Dem/Labour voter, and if I was in Scotland, add SNP to the list. In Germany, I'd be a CDU/SPD/Green swing voter. Canada NDP/Liberal (or Bloc in Quebec). You are the one exhibiting parochial tendencies by not realizing the realities on the ground in the United States, and saying that I should be throwing my vote to a party that will never get elected. And very narrow-minded for assuming that this is the way I prefer it. When in fact that is not the case. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Patine said:

You obviously don't understand my viewpoint, but are incorrectly and clumsily paraphrasing in absolutist misinterpretations to serve your point. Basically, the kind of gross misinterpretation to slander and discredit people done by Fox News "Personality Driven News Show," hosts.

 

I am not at all convinced a hard Establishment, mentally failing, Bush Administration Policy supporting Senator and a prosecutor deeply involved and behind a lot of the law-and-order abuses that are one of the biggest gripes of the Progressives at the moment, will, while probably being an improvement on Trump and Pence (which is a pretty low bar), that one can expect, realistically to actually progress and advance the nation in the ways in truly needs to be, outside of digging out of the latrine pit left by the Trump Administration. And I do not consider a locked and unchallengeable two-party system to ever be "highly reasonable," and it shows a blind parochial and nationalistic arrogance to say it is "a narrow minded view and a bit "Im better than you" view to say that my thinking is dystopian," as no locked two-party is EVER TRULY good for the people or nation involved, be it the United States, may Anglo-Caribbean Nations, Portugal, Pakistan, Taiwan, pre-Election Reform Act UK, pre-Rise of the Progressive Party Canada, etc. - and all of them have some form of electoral rigging or suppression and/or institutional corruption to keep their own Duopolies in place - methods, in fact, that make those governments and parties criminal organizations not worthy of legitimately governing.

I understand your viewpoint, it’s just a boring one.  
 

There are shades of gray in life.  Things can be better than other things, even if they fall short of perfection.  

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Patine said:

You obviously don't understand my viewpoint, but are incorrectly and clumsily paraphrasing in absolutist misinterpretations to serve your point. Basically, the kind of gross misinterpretation to slander and discredit people done by Fox News "Personality Driven News Show," hosts.

I have to agree with @Actinguy here. You interpretation of what should be done and what shouldn't be done, or what is bad or what is good, etc. is often binary, similar to @servo75 in this regard. At times you get the sky is falling mentality of @Wiw . I don't see much of an allowance of a spectrum of ideas, solutions, acceptable modes when it comes to your beliefs. 

I have my own opinions too, but I'm generally tolerant of disagreements with @Actinguy, @Reagan04, @Conservative Elector 2, @admin_270 even if I strongly disagree with their points of view. I tend to shut out binary thinkers "This good/this bad" like @servo75 because it ends up being a waste of time and effort to really engage in debate. 

The one thing you have in your favor with me is that a lot of what I believe in overlaps with the little views you accept as good. If this was not the case, I'd probably not engage you in conversation since your response would be predictable, repetitive of what you've said before, and the debate would be circular since we'd have both already made up our minds. 

You do have a lot of good traits that many don't have. I think you have intelligence and high integrity. You're trustworthy, well-meaning. I just think you forum discussion style and method of communication (including your writing style) gets tiring. 

I know I have my own faults too. 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Hestia11 said:

The fact that you think that I'm blindly parochial and exhibit nationalistic arrogance is insane. At this point, it's not worth discussing with you since you shut down all of my arguments as to why I support what I support inside the US. I want electoral reform badly. I wish I lived in Canada or the UK or Germany where parties had to fight for my support. But unfortunately that's just not how it works in the US, and I hope that it begins to change as time goes on, and the systems around the world become more understood by the people of the United States. But I will never support the Republican Party's attacks on health care, social security, and other things in my lifetime, which makes me a Democrat by choice. In the UK, if I were in England, I would be a Green/Lib Dem/Labour voter, and if I was in Scotland, add SNP to the list. In Germany, I'd be a CDU/SPD/Green swing voter. Canada NDP/Liberal (or Bloc in Quebec). You are the one exhibiting parochial tendencies by not realizing the realities on the ground in the United States, and saying that I should be throwing my vote to a party that will never get elected. And very narrow-minded for assuming that this is the way I prefer it. When in fact that is not the case. 

I was quite obtuse there, I admit, and I apologize. But the main point of what I was trying to say is if Americans want electoral reform and more choice, it's something voters will have to create activism for, and grassroots tickets based on dissatisfaction (like Perot was trying to do, but it was obviously he was clueless about running a country, saying it could "run like a business,"), and not make wistful statements, and then continue to vote for Democrats or Republican ad infinitum. The DNC and RNC are not going to hand down electoral reform that will threaten their Duopoly out of magnanimity - the voters must make their supremacy feel uncomfortable and challenged enough at the ballot box where, 'business as usual," can't carry on. I do understand this won't happen in 2020, but Biden's nomination and his tapping of Harris were still disappointing to me, and symptoms of what I see as a bigger problem.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

I understand your viewpoint, it’s just a boring one.  
 

There are shades of gray in life.  Things can be better than other things, even if they fall short of perfection.  

You obviously don't understand my viewpoint if you just reiterated the incorrect and slanderous absolutist paraphrasing I took you to task for, instead of showing any inkling you truly understood my actual viewpoint.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Patine said:

I was quite obtuse there, I admit, and I apologize. But the main point of what I was trying to say is if Americans want electoral reform and more choice, it's something voters will have to create activism for, and grassroots tickets based on dissatisfaction (like Perot was trying to do, but it was obviously he was clueless about running a country, saying it could "run like a business,"), and not make wistful statements, and then continue to vote for Democrats or Republican ad infinitum. The DNC and RNC are not going to hand down electoral reform that will threaten their Duopoly out of magnanimity - the voters must make their supremacy feel uncomfortable and challenged enough at the ballot box where, 'business as usual," can't carry on. I do understand this won't happen in 2020, but Biden's nomination and his tapping of Harris were still disappointing to me, and symptoms of what I see as a bigger problem.

I get what you're saying, don't get me wrong. The problem is it seems like the majority of Americans are satisfied. Maybe not satisfied, but don't want to go to all the trouble of trying to create a third party or disbanding the Senate, which is what it would take. Honestly, I think this decision is a bit separate from the issue of electoral reform. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem to be anywhere near a major issue in America - not even as much as it seemed in 2016 when Gary Johnson was beginning to snag votes. I hope we'll get an opportunity in the future, but I don't want to hold my breath about it. Harris has what I need to support - she's tough and will be able to take on Trump and Pence in debates and on the stump, and is a genuinely nice and affable person. There just isn't another option to me to support - even the Greens and Libertarians haven't really offered credible alternatives this year. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I have to agree with @Actinguy here. You interpretation of what should be done and what shouldn't be done, or what is bad or what is good, etc. is often binary, similar to @servo75 in this regard. At times you get the sky is falling mentality of @Wiw . I don't see much of an allowance of a spectrum of ideas, solutions, acceptable modes when it comes to your beliefs. 

I have my own opinions too, but I'm generally tolerant of disagreements with @Actinguy, @Reagan04, @Conservative Elector 2, @admin_270 even if I strongly disagree with their points of view. I tend to shut out binary thinkers "This good/this bad" like @servo75 because it ends up being a waste of time and effort to really engage in debate. 

The one thing you have in your favor with me is that a lot of what I believe in overlaps with the little views you accept as good. If this was not the case, I'd probably not engage you in conversation since your response would be predictable, repetitive of what you've said before, and the debate would be circular since we'd have both already made up our minds. 

You do have a lot of good traits that many don't have. I think you have intelligence and high integrity. You're trustworthy, well-meaning. I just think you forum discussion style and method of communication (including your writing style) gets tiring. 

I know I have my own faults too. 

 

That's not quite true. It's just that there are certain areas that I believe are outright failures (like the two-party system in the U.S. that still are defended or have a highly defeatist attitude attached to them by other posters here), and I do have a strong sense of justice that also applies to the concept that the most powerful should be answerable for their crimes just like the lowly. I'm actually a lot more flexible on many other issues.

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Patine said:

That's not quite true. It's just that there are certain areas that I believe are outright failures (like the two-party system in the U.S. that still are defended or have a highly defeatist attitude attached to them by other posters here), and I do have a strong sense of justice that also applies to the concept that the most powerful should be answerable for their crimes just like the lowly. I'm actually a lot more flexible on many other issues.

Maybe it is because you focus your discussion primarily in the areas where you are least flexible. I'm often shocked that you get in such heated discussion with @Actinguy. I've never had a single heated exchange with him. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Maybe it is because you focus your discussion primarily in the areas where you are least flexible. I'm often shocked that you get in such heated discussion with @Actinguy. I've never had a single heated exchange with him. 

Well, in the case of @Actinguy, he's the very face of the American political Establishment, at least insofar as active posters on this forum go, so fertile ground for sharp disagreement is to be expected. However, I do highly object to his relatively recent tactics of trying to belittle my opinions through transparently puerile and petty means, and it really hurts and diminishes any credibility he may be trying exercise in a discussion - though he seems incapable of seeing that fact.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Patine said:

Well, in the case of @Actinguy, he's the very face of the American political Establishment, at least insofar as active posters on this forum go, so fertile ground for sharp disagreement is to be expected. However, I do highly object to his relatively recent tactics of trying to belittle my opinions through transparently puerile and petty means, and it really hurts and diminishes any credibility he may be trying exercise in a discussion - though he seems incapable of seeing that fact.

He's not the face of the American establishment. He used to be homeless, sleeping in his car. If anything he wants stability, whether that comes from the establishment or not. I strongly disagree with his pro-military intervention stance, but I don't attack him on it because he isn't a warmonger. I think the reason he belittles your opinions and others do is because your style of argument and style of discussion can be abrasive, repetitive, and tiring. I say this and I'm rarely on the tail end of it. I witness it. I often avoid reading it, even if I agree with you on things more than I agree with @Actinguy on this. You must be doing something wrong if I'm defending someone I agree with 50% of the time (possibly more) from someone I agree with 90% of the time. I think the both of you probably have more in common with one another than you realize. I think a lot of the heat between you is manufactured against on another because of aggressive tone, which can cause a cumulative effect. 

You calling him "the face of the American political Establishment" is about as negatively aggressive as @servo75 calling you a Communist. Both comments are very, very loosely aimed in the right direction but are profoundly off the mark. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, vcczar said:

He's not the face of the American establishment. He used to be homeless, sleeping in his car. If anything he wants stability, whether that comes from the establishment or not. I strongly disagree with his pro-military intervention stance, but I don't attack him on it because he isn't a warmonger. I think the reason he belittles your opinions and others do is because your style of argument and style of discussion can be abrasive, repetitive, and tiring. I say this and I'm rarely on the tail end of it. I witness it. I often avoid reading it, even if I agree with you on things more than I agree with @Actinguy on this. You must be doing something wrong if I'm defending someone I agree with 50% of the time (possibly more) from someone I agree with 90% of the time. I think the both of you probably have more in common with one another than you realize. I think a lot of the heat between you is manufactured against on another because of aggressive tone, which can cause a cumulative effect. 

You calling him "the face of the American political Establishment" is about as negatively aggressive as @servo75 calling you a Communist. Both comments are very, very loosely aimed in the right direction but are profoundly off the mark. 

Well, since as far as I'm concerned, the 2020 U.S. Presidential Election is bunk (though I don't expect any agreement on that), I am returning my forum activities to mostly scenario making, which seems to generate less animosity, all-in-all.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This will be the first time since 1984 the Dems won't have an Ivy Leaguer on the ticket.  I predict they'll do better this time around.

Harris is the first HBCU grad to be on a larger party ticket.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

I agree. Here is my take: Harris is neither embracing the ideas of Sanders/Warren nor does she hold the values, protesters have fought for during the last months. She has an awful record as AG even for Democrats. Furthermore she ran a mediocre campaign which she had to withdraw from and most importantly she isn't likeable at all as demonstrated when she went after Biden at the debate stage. When embracing Biden now she just seems hypocritical. He didn't change and months ago he was declared a literal demon by her. Very trustworthy. Her only qualifications are being vocal and having some sort of name recognition, but she is definitely not an exciting pick. CA had gone blue anyway. Picking someone from California shows again Democrats have lost their connection to the so called ''fly-over country''. They are again caring about ''Hollywood issues'' instead of ''kitchen table issues''. 

 

Yup if Trump were smart and wanted to put on another great debate production he would pardon some of those non violent offenders Harris locked up. It probably wont him alot more votes but it definitely make people think twice before voting Biden/Harris plus it forces the conversation about both of their terrible records on criminal justice.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...