Jump to content
270soft Forum

Convention Thoughts Day 1


Recommended Posts

This display of oratorical and emotional talent on First Lady Obama's part is gentle reminder that this woman could be President literally whenever she wants to be.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 84
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Oh sure. I'm familiar because he works with some of my favorites on stuff like that.  On a side note- God I wish Michelle Obama was still First Lady.

This is a very moderate, bipartisan night. I like the tone a lot. Focusing on non-partisan values like leadership on covid and national unity. Bernie will keep that anchor in progressivism but no doub

Empathy, Character, Unity, Bipartisanship. Even Bernie was getting in on the moderation and conciliatory tone, he hit very few left-wing policy initiatives. This was a good night and makes me feel goo

Posted Images

14 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I'm wondering if this speech means Michelle Obama might try to run for office. 

Her face looks different, by the way. 

People have been begging her for years.  I have zero doubt the Vice Presidency was hers if she wanted it.  But she just has zero interest in that.

I could see her as something like Secretary of Education though.  Or even Attorney General.  Not in the Biden cabinet -- that's too on the nose -- but a future Democrat less directly tied to her husband.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok this Billy Porter outro is beautiful. As campy and cheesy as it is I can't help but get into it. This is a solid ending. Also great song. Then again I can't not love Billy Porter.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Michelle Obama is the Democratic Party's most powerful weapon. They'll have to be careful in what ways to deploy her in this election. This speech was 100% on the nose in that regard.

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

I can't think she can be married to Barack Obama and really hate politics. I think she hates "politics" but doesn't hate politics.

She supposedly only signed off on him running for President if he gave up smoking.  (Last I heard, he eventually started it up again in secret as the stress got to him).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lots of patriotic and Christian tones in this convention really added to the bipartisan and moderate tone. Again, this was really well framed in that regard. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Reagan04 said:

Lots of patriotic and Christian tones in this convention really added to the bipartisan and moderate tone. Again, this was really well framed in that regard. 

I wonder if they were banking on undecided conservatives mainly tuning in on day 1, if they tuned in at all?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The fact that they'd rather give more time to Kasich than AOC one of the most popular leader of the left wing tells alot about who controls the Democratic Party. 

Progressives have no place in the Democratic Party. After defeating Trump, I don't foresee myself ever giving my virtual Support for the Democratic Party. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, CentristGuy said:

The fact that they'd rather give more time to Kasich than AOC one of the most popular leader of the left wing tells alot about who controls the Democratic Party. 

Progressives have no place in the Democratic Party. After defeating Trump, I don't foresee myself ever giving my virtual Support for the Democratic Party. 

They're trying to broadcast a message - not show who leads the Democrats. When it comes down to it, Kasich may be a figurehead that can get centrist votes. Thats what we need. Votes. Bernie is speaking to the left flank for as long as Kasich is appealing to moderate Republicans. I agree that AOC shouldve gotten more time, but honestly some of these short speeches haven't been that bad. I wouldnt work yourself up too much when in reality this is a publicity stunt, not a platform.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Hestia11 said:

They're trying to broadcast a message - not show who leads the Democrats. When it comes down to it, Kasich may be a figurehead that can get centrist votes. Thats what we need. Votes. Bernie is speaking to the left flank for as long as Kasich is appealing to moderate Republicans. I agree that AOC shouldve gotten more time, but honestly some of these short speeches haven't been that bad. I wouldnt work yourself up too much when in reality this is a publicity stunt, not a platform.

The message is fuck Progressives. And it's received. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, CentristGuy said:

The message is fuck Progressives. And it's received. 

Biden has dropped the ball on this election, and now, like 1852, 1920, 1968, 2004, and 2016 it's a lost election where no candidate who has a chance of winning will be any damned good or do anything remotely useful or advance or progress the nation or the candidate that's needed for the times. Write this one off, too!

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, vcczar said:

Never heard of Rep. Cedric Richmond of Louisiana. Glad to learn of someone new. 

I guess that's the one time I know a US politician, when you did not.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Patine said:

Biden has dropped the ball on this election, and now, like 1852, 1920, 1968, 2004, and 2016 it's a lost election where no candidate who has a chance of winning will be any damned good or do anything remotely useful or advance or progress the nation or the candidate that's needed for the times. Write this one off, too!

I feel bad for America. Except I have it worse here with my Fascist President lasting till 2022. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, CentristGuy said:

The message is fuck Progressives. And it's received. 

If you want to take it that way, by all means. But that isnt the intended message. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

After getting myself familiar with yesterday's convention speakers, I am ready to provide my view on them and some of your statements (You know I love you all ... but I have to disagree sometimes).

13 hours ago, vcczar said:

Andrew Cuomo is coming off as damn presidential. I wish he were the nominee.. Great interview presence, determined speech, clear speaking, excellent eye-contact, good rhythm. etc. 

Yeah presidential and even likeable sometimes perhaps, but as I pointed out earlier, he's another one of these people who use too much of the feel good stuff rhetorically, but do in fact little for their constituents. His performance regarding Covid was bad, let's be honest. He once praised Trump for not letting NY down and now he bashes the President for doing too little too late while he did a complete mess himself. Cuomo is on an ego trip and isn't a good politician like de Blasio. 

 

12 hours ago, vcczar said:

Gretchen Whitmer is slightly stumbling with the teleprompter speech. She seems likable though. She would have been a good alternative VP pick to Kamala Harris, arguably better since she's from Michigan. 

Whitmer... well, I once thought she's likeable, but her terrible handling of her state during the crisis discredited her for me (in fact most governors have done an embarrassing job)

12 hours ago, vcczar said:

Republican former Gov of NJ Christine Todd Whitman is speaking at the Convention. She used to be a potential presidential candidate that some thought would be the first woman president. 

Yes she was a fine governor, but as I said Whitman like Kasich and most other Republicans for Biden will regret their choice on day 1 if Biden's elected. I agree, Kasich would have been a fine choice back in 2016.

11 hours ago, Reagan04 said:

On a side note- God I wish Michelle Obama was still First Lady.

Ahh that makes me cringing. Michelle Obama is highly unlikeable to me as she seems constantly lecturing everyone about following the path she chose. Futhermore she isn't authentic. Laura Bush was the last great First Lady. Not to mention Hillary Clinton was a massive downgrade of the integrity Barbara Bush and Nancy Reagan had. Obama also does not acknowledge the bad job her husband did which lead to Trump being elected as well. A bad economy, weak foreign policy and massive illegal immigration, a bad handling of the H1N1 crisis among other things. Yeah, let's go back...

Furthermore imagine if a person whose firm lobbied for Putin being named Time's Person of the Year had spoken at the RNC. Well, Susan Molinari was speaking yesterday, but the media ignores this fact. Of course... double standards at its best.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

After getting myself familiar with yesterday's convention speakers, I am ready to provide my view on them and some of your statements (You know I love you all ... but I have to disagree sometimes).

Yeah presidential and even likeable sometimes perhaps, but as I pointed out earlier, he's another one of these people who use too much of the feel good stuff rhetorically, but do in fact little for their constituents. His performance regarding Covid was bad, let's be honest. He once praised Trump for not letting NY down and now he bashes the President for doing too little too late while he did a complete mess himself. Cuomo is on an ego trip and isn't a good politician like de Blasio. 

 

Whitmer... well, I once thought she's likeable, but her terrible handling of her state during the crisis discredited her for me (in fact most governors have done an embarrassing job)

Yes she was a fine governor, but as I said Whitman like Kasich and most other Republicans for Biden will regret their choice on day 1 if Biden's elected. I agree, Kasich would have been a fine choice back in 2016.

Ahh that makes me cringing. Michelle Obama is highly unlikeable to me as she seems constantly lecturing everyone about following the path she chose. Futhermore she isn't authentic. Laura Bush was the last great First Lady. Not to mention Hillary Clinton was a massive downgrade of the integrity Barbara Bush and Nancy Reagan had. Obama also does not acknowledge the bad job her husband did which lead to Trump being elected as well. A bad economy, weak foreign policy and massive illegal immigration, a bad handling of the H1N1 crisis among other things. Yeah, let's go back...

Furthermore imagine if a person whose firm lobbied for Putin being named Time's Person of the Year had spoken at the RNC. Well, Susan Molinari was speaking yesterday, but the media ignores this fact. Of course... double standards at its best.

Except for arguably the COVID response by Cuomo, I think you’re profoundly wrong on everything you say here.  

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

Except for arguably the COVID response by Cuomo, I think you’re profoundly wrong on everything you say here.  

Well, it's just my view of the things going on.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

Well, it's just my view of the things going on.

Yeah, but there's things like economic data for the Obama economy to compare with the Bush economy to show the recovery and economic surge. The Obama economy is the first half of the Trump economy. It's the same trajectory. For governor responses to Covid, you have the people of the respective states rating their governor's handling of Covid. Last I saw, Whitmer was doing really well, so much so that she was a VP option and the state has turned profoundly against Trump. In any case, last I saw, every governor was scoring higher on Covid than Trump. 

When I saw profoundly wrong, I'm saying that what you are saying is at odds with the data and research. When you say "my view on things" in response to something like this, it reads like, "I don't think economic recoveries, governor responses to Covid, or people lecturing at me are good if it is done by a Democrat." or at least comes off that way. I'm more certain than not, you wouldn't say this if we were talking about Gov. Reynold's handling of the pandemic in Iowa, Trump's current economic figures, or Ted Cruz lecturing at you.

I think the one area that you made a statement that can be argued with convincing facts is probably with Cuomo. In his defense, he wasn't getting much help from Trump and was dealing with the city with the highest population density and the highest population. However, people in NYC are angry at him over not doing better. I'll have to see new approval figures to see if he's flubbed it statewide. 

In regards to Michelle Obama, "not liking her lecturing" or thinking she's unlikable (a very minority opinion considering she has a reputation for being likable and admired worldwide) are definitely opinions not proven or disproven by facts, figures, and data, so that is at least a valid statement, as much as I disagree with it. 

So basically, my issue was you making statements that were contrary to data and research, which makes your response come off as blind personal bias. 

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

Yeah, but there's things like economic data for the Obama economy to compare with the Bush economy to show the recovery and economic surge. The Obama economy is the first half of the Trump economy. It's the same trajectory.

As I pointed out in other posts economics is probably the field I can't argue the most about it. I simple don't have the insight knowledge, because it's not the most interesting thing for me. However, I was comparing the Trump economy and the Obama economy, which I believe is way better under the Trump administration. Taxes got cut and jobs were massively created (if we can trust the numbers. I can't prove Trump wrong here because I simply don't know how many jobs really have been created). The Bush economy was bad at the end, given the fact of the Economic crisis hitting in 2007. Again, I probably can't argue in-depth with you on this crisis because I was too young back then and there are other things I chose to inform myself about first. The only thing I found highly enjoyable was a list of firms going bankrupt during the crisis. There are so many, obviously important, firms I never heard of. It's the same with all the billionaires and millionaires. They made their fortune with firms I often don't even know. That's something very interesting for me, as I like finding out what these firms really do. It seems sometimes like shady business because the existence of many firms doesn't seem to be common knowledge. 

21 minutes ago, vcczar said:

For governor responses to Covid, you have the people of the respective states rating their governor's handling of Covid. Last I saw, Whitmer was doing really well, so much so that she was a VP option and the state has turned profoundly against Trump. In any case, last I saw, every governor was scoring higher on Covid than Trump. 

I am pretty aware of the fact most GOP governors did a bad job as well. I'd name Reeves of Mississippi and Kemp of Georgia. I am not satisfied with DeSantis' handling as well. Let's be honest the crisis exposed many governors of both parties for being not able to deal with a major disaster. I'd probably see some governors as worse than Trump overall, but I am not in fond his handling as well. I'd have many suggestions for him to do better. I just doubt Biden would do a better job as well. I mean he sits in the basement and talks nicely. That's fine but not if you want to become president. It's not even convincing he would be capable of doing better.

27 minutes ago, vcczar said:

"I don't think economic recoveries, governor responses to Covid, or people lecturing at me are good if it is done by a Democrat." or at least comes off that way. I'm more certain than not, you wouldn't say this if we were talking about Gov. Reynold's handling of the pandemic in Iowa, Trump's current economic figures, or Ted Cruz lecturing at you.

I am not particularly aware of Gov. Reynolds' handling, I don't even know the current numbers of Iowa but I often read she has done a bad job. If true, yeah let's call her out for that, but we shouldn't be blind on the blue eye and say all Democratic governors did an amazing job. That's simply not true. I had long a better impression of Newsom's handling but it faded away when cases were rising again and the governor also made some awkward decisions. I think Beshear has done a decent job, but I don't know if that's still true. 

36 minutes ago, vcczar said:

When I saw profoundly wrong, I'm saying that what you are saying is at odds with the data and research. When you say "my view on things" in response to something like this

I don't think I am negligent of data and research if I have all relevant information available. I am wearing a mask since March, I'd advise people to do so as well. But we have to differentiate between a subjective feeling and data based reports as well. Just because the numbers tell me I am safe in New Zealand, I don't have to believe this. I'd probably feel safer in Montana. My own government is on the right wing considering the larger party of the coalition and I am critical of their handling as well. They tell us we are safe to go to a restaurant. I did not go to one since March, so we need some subjective feeling as well, when making decisions. Therefore I'd argue Americans were better off under the Trump administration compared to Obama's until the pandemic hit. I mean no bad economy is worse than the pandemic, we can't compare this.

47 minutes ago, vcczar said:

Ted Cruz lecturing at you.

I never felt getting lectured by Ted Cruz actually. It's not an issue I have with all Democrats but with some. I am pretty sure there are Republicans with an unlikeable speaking style as well, but I can't think of any now.

51 minutes ago, vcczar said:

In his defense, he wasn't getting much help from Trump and was dealing with the city with the highest population density and the highest population.

 I'd agree here in part.

52 minutes ago, vcczar said:

In regards to Michelle Obama, "not liking her lecturing" or thinking she's unlikable (a very minority opinion considering she has a reputation for being likable and admired worldwide) are definitely opinions not proven or disproven by facts, figures, and data, so that is at least a valid statement, as much as I disagree with it.

It might be a minority opinion, but it's mine and I'll stick to it until I notice a real change in her personality. Let's be honest here again. She said Trump had the chance to prove he's a good leader or something like that. That's not even close to authentic. We all know Trump could have done whatever is possible and even if it's good Michelle Obama had never said he did a good job or backed his re-election. I don't buy her crocodile tears here. I always try to appreciate good things when done by another party as well.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, CentristGuy said:

I feel bad for America. Except I have it worse here with my Fascist President lasting till 2022. 

His rhetoric seems to lean too far to the left to be a Fascist. Then again is used as a generic catch-all for any sort of populist authoritarian figure at all nowadays, which is not really accurate to the specific, narrow-context definition that the word "Fascism," has in truth. By proper definition, Duerte, Bolsanaro, Trump, Orban, Edogan, Putin, Lukashenko, Modi, Kim, and Xi are not at all Fascists, as properly defined, but all belong to completely different political ideologies (also different from each other) that should be firmly recognized as separate and, often new ideologies, and spoken as such - as shoehorning them inappropriately and by contrived and clumsy rhetoric into older ideologies they don't really fit into, as is so commonplace nowadays, just to take advantage of historical baggage associated with such terms is unproductive and disingenuous, and doesn't do anyone any good. It fact, it blinds people to the reasons, circumstances, and socio-political breeding grounds that produce these ideologies, and the actual dangers these specific new ones pose - because the forced narrative of the old ones, which aren't really accurate, is also what's being pushed. It's the same phenomenon as calling Bernie Sanders a full-out, died-in-the-wool Communist (regardless of what he may have believed in the '80's, it's obvious he's now a fairly moderate Social Democrat).

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

 I'd probably see some governors as worse than Trump overall, but I am not in fond his handling as well. I'd have many suggestions for him to do better. I just doubt Biden would do a better job as well. I mean he sits in the basement and talks nicely. That's fine but not if you want to become president. It's not even convincing he would be capable of doing better.

This is why a third choice that is actually allowed to win would be nice about now, as both major parties have nominated losing tickets are absolutely not what's needed now. But, this is the United States - the "Land of the Free," except in electoral choice of political leadership, and no one who is not nominated by two failed, lying, criminal, and treasonous engines of power running the country well past their welcome is ever ALLOWED to win anything, except the RARE member of Congress, Governor, and local office, because the party and electoral office caudillos will absolutely not allow the rigging to break - or their whole house of cards would collapse and the gig would be up...

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

His rhetoric seems to lean too far to the left to be a Fascist. Then again is used as a generic catch-all for any sort of populist authoritarian figure at all nowadays, which is not really accurate to the specific, narrow-context definition that the word "Fascism," has in truth. By proper definition, Duerte, Bolsanaro, Trump, Orban, Edogan, Putin, Lukashenko, Modi, Kim, and Xi are not at all Fascists, as properly defined, but all belong to completely different political ideologies (also different from each other) that should be firmly recognized as separate and, often new ideologies, and spoken as such - as shoehorning them inappropriately and by contrived and clumsy rhetoric into older ideologies they don't really fit into, as is so commonplace nowadays, just to take advantage of historical baggage associated with such terms is unproductive and disingenuous, and doesn't do anyone any good. It fact, it blinds people to the reasons, circumstances, and socio-political breeding grounds that produce these ideologies, and the actual dangers these specific new ones pose - because the forced narrative of the old ones, which aren't really accurate, is also what's being pushed. It's the same phenomenon as calling Bernie Sanders a full-out, died-in-the-wool Communist (regardless of what he may have believed in the '80's, it's obvious he's now a fairly moderate Social Democrat).

He is Fascist. I don't care about your semantics arguments. I know he isn't LITERALLY a Fascist but IT DAMN FEELS LIKE FASCISM. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

After getting myself familiar with yesterday's convention speakers, I am ready to provide my view on them and some of your statements (You know I love you all ... but I have to disagree sometimes).

Yeah presidential and even likeable sometimes perhaps, but as I pointed out earlier, he's another one of these people who use too much of the feel good stuff rhetorically, but do in fact little for their constituents. His performance regarding Covid was bad, let's be honest. He once praised Trump for not letting NY down and now he bashes the President for doing too little too late while he did a complete mess himself. Cuomo is on an ego trip and isn't a good politician like de Blasio. 

 

Whitmer... well, I once thought she's likeable, but her terrible handling of her state during the crisis discredited her for me (in fact most governors have done an embarrassing job)

Yes she was a fine governor, but as I said Whitman like Kasich and most other Republicans for Biden will regret their choice on day 1 if Biden's elected. I agree, Kasich would have been a fine choice back in 2016.

Ahh that makes me cringing. Michelle Obama is highly unlikeable to me as she seems constantly lecturing everyone about following the path she chose. Futhermore she isn't authentic. Laura Bush was the last great First Lady. Not to mention Hillary Clinton was a massive downgrade of the integrity Barbara Bush and Nancy Reagan had. Obama also does not acknowledge the bad job her husband did which lead to Trump being elected as well. A bad economy, weak foreign policy and massive illegal immigration, a bad handling of the H1N1 crisis among other things. Yeah, let's go back...

Furthermore imagine if a person whose firm lobbied for Putin being named Time's Person of the Year had spoken at the RNC. Well, Susan Molinari was speaking yesterday, but the media ignores this fact. Of course... double standards at its best.

Unironically. I find no issues with this statement. I agree??? 

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

Unironically. I find no issues with this statement. I agree??? 

Thank you. I try to voice my opinion as sober as possible.

  • 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...