The great 2020 election thread....

[Darth Wedgius]

Well, poverty isn't criminalized. Be happy.

I haven't seen a lot of anti-homeless rhetoric from Republicans. I've seen suggestions that some people choose homelessness. And I've seen support for shelters for men that had nothing to do with bashing feminism.

I've also seen plenty of people disparage men as a class, and those seem to come from the left.

I recommend you read [url=https://ips-dc.org/the-poor-get-prison-the-alarming-spread-of-the-criminalization-of-poverty/]The Poor Get Prison[/url]. It's a fantastic place to start on something that - and I say this without judgment - you are completely ignorant of.

As for Republicans, well, lets just poll Glorious Leader:

TRUMP: It’s a phenomenon that started two years ago. It’s disgraceful. I am looking at it very seriously. We are doing other things, as you probably noticed, like some of the things we’re doing now. But you can’t do that. You can’t have [it] where police officers are getting sick just by walking the beat. I mean, they’re actually getting very sick. Where people are getting sick. The people living there are living in hell too. Although some of them have mental problems where they don’t even know they are living that way. In fact, perhaps they like living that way. They can’t do that. We can’t ruin our cities. You have people that work in those cities. They work in office buildings and to get into the building they have to walk through a scene that no one would have believed possible three years ago. This is the liberal establishment. This is what I am fighting. I don’t know if they are afraid of votes. I don’t know if they really believe that this should be taking place. But it’s a terrible thing that is taking place.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics/2019/07/trump-homeless-urinating-making-cops-sick-walking-beat-fox-news-tucker-carlson-interview-liberal-cities.html

But lets ignore his rambling, inane speeches. We're all used to him saying random shit, like homelessness started in 2017, and other random bullshit like that. What about his policies?

https://nlihc.org/resource/president-trump-proposes-drastic-cuts-affordable-housing-programs

Drastic cuts to affordable housing to the tune of $9.6 billion, which would create tens of thousands more homeless, if not hundreds of thousands.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/14/politics/food-stamps-work-requirements-usda-rule-blocked/index.html

Cut food from to 500,000 Americans, narrowly blocked by an injunction (because this administration rules by decree, not democracy).

Even the criminal justice reform he touted was undermined by his own justice department, as the First Step Act (a slight rebrand of the 2014 Redeem bill) has been attacked by his own DOJ, even as he touts it: https://www.motherjones.com/crime-justice/2020/02/trump-just-bragged-about-criminal-justice-reform-look-closer-at-how-his-administration-is-undoing-it/

So on every front, I see the Republican party being extremely anti-male by your own definition. So I guess I have to ask, why do you hate men? You know these policies disproportionately hurt men, yet you're enacting them anyway. Is this misandry?

Where is it against the law to be poor?

Where did Trump say all the homeless are lazy? Like I said, some Republicans will say that some homeless choose that.

And because deriding men as a class is misandry. Something that disproportionately affects men isn't necessarily, just like something that disproportionately affects blacks (or whites) isn't necessarily racist, and something that disproportionately affects women isn't necessarily misogynist.

[Captain Crimson]

Wedgius, my lord... I have a question I would like to present for you. It has to do with Mr. 45's rhetoric about nukes. "Why have them if we're not going to use them?" Not even nuclear weapons, specifically, but something in the same spirit. Do you mind if I ask you? I'd love to get your opinion!

[GreyICE]

Where is it against the law to be poor?

Did you read the article?

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Or, to cite somebody who has been covering this over a century ago,

In its majestic equality, the law forbids rich and poor alike to sleep under bridges, beg in the streets and steal loaves of bread.

Le Lys Rouge [The Red Lily] (1894), ch. 7

[Captain Crimson]

Well, I'm going to drop the question here anyway. I'm sure Wedgius will see it once they get in.

The question is this. What do you make of Mr. 45's comments that our nuclear weapons are going to waste by not being put to use? I'm not certain if he has ever said this, though I'm pretty sure he would probably think the same thing about biological weapons. And before you counter back it's speculative, yeah, it is. That's why this is a question, to gauge your thoughts. But at any rate, that he has said that about nuclear weapons would mean he is consistent if he felt the same about biological weapons. I've personally met his voters who feel that they're going to waste. So it is at least a sentiment he's stirred among his base.

And yet, as I had pointed out to this voter, our stores of virus samples are not being put to waste just because we're not using them to kill millions of non-combatants, they're used for research methods as prevention if biological weapons were to be used on us and also to pinpoint possible commonalities to other viruses, to explore medical treatment plans and what other beneficial uses genetically modified viruses may have in the long run. Do you feel that Mr. 45 is truly aware about this? I mean, his remark about nukes shows someone who's inconsistent to reality, because that would spread so much fallout, it makes the ensuing long-term effects above short-term benefits, whatever you can argue, absolutely unfeasible. Chernobyl is still Exhibit A to that.

Anyway, here is my prediction about the 2020 election. I'm fairly confident that if I could gamble a bit more with money, I'd put the bet down with the Las Vegas brokers. I'm calling it now, Mr. Biden is going to rake in less votes than Mr. 45, but eke out an electoral win. As I have said before, this should be very worrisome for people who make even token lip service about democracy. That is why I find it so skeptical to participate in the voting system rather than volunteering at a nearby soup kitchen or a homeless shelter, where I could actually help out in a meaningful way and see those results firsthand. The system has become so massively bloated that simply four or eight years of Mr. Biden and whoever is put up to succeed him will not change it. It is a socioeconomic and political inertia. And that's hard to fight.

"Slightly better" than who we have now is a talking point to shame people who have no real power into attempting to fix a system that might literally be broken beyond repair, which is how Mr. 45 got elected in the first place. This is far past one person's job. This will require what I feel is a massively unprecedented organizational effort that extends past what the voting public or our political leaders are capable of. This requires a huge commitment from many of our institutions and other elite heads that many don't wanna put in, I feel, because I think we've secretly given up on ourselves a long time ago, and it's very plain now.

I'm also looking forward to the accusations we're sexist AND racist by criticizing whatever black woman Mr. Biden puts forward to succeed him as his VP and inherit the presidency when he dies in the next five to seven years. I mean, how is it racist or sexist to point out the innate hypocrisy from people who claim to stand for female empowerment and civil rights to resort to what seems to be a very old-school affirmative action token representative ploy too many Americans think we should be past now? It is not sexism or racism to point out that in this area the democrats are lacking and don't live up to the values they espouse. All it really does is cement this idea that "a black woman could do the job!" and for, like, two years at best. Which we already know. The high majority of Americans do already know this. Only hate groups would think otherwise. Fandom gets hit ruthlessly by this talking point that opposition results from bigotry, so I totally see this coming. I'd also bet on this.

[Darth Wedgius]

Where is it against the law to be poor?

Did you read the article?

Is that information in there? Does it point out where it is illegal to be poor? I saw lots of things it said was criminalization of the poor, but nothing like that.

[Darth Wedgius]

Well, I'm going to drop the question here anyway. I'm sure Wedgius will see it once they get in.

The question is this. What do you make of Mr. 45's comments that our nuclear weapons are going to waste by not being put to use? I'm not certain if he has ever said this, though I'm pretty sure he would probably think the same thing about biological weapons. And before you counter back it's speculative, yeah, it is. That's why this is a question, to gauge your thoughts. But at any rate, that he has said that about nuclear weapons would mean he is consistent if he felt the same about biological weapons. I've personally met his voters who feel that they're going to waste. So it is at least a sentiment he's stirred among his base.

And yet, as I had pointed out to this voter, our stores of virus samples are not being put to waste just because we're not using them to kill millions of non-combatants, they're used for research methods as prevention if biological weapons were to be used on us and also to pinpoint possible commonalities to other viruses, to explore medical treatment plans and what other beneficial uses genetically modified viruses may have in the long run. Do you feel that Mr. 45 is truly aware about this? I mean, his remark about nukes shows someone who's inconsistent to reality, because that would spread so much fallout, it makes the ensuing long-term effects above short-term benefits, whatever you can argue, absolutely unfeasible. Chernobyl is still Exhibit A to that.

I haven't been able to find a quote from Prez 45 saying that. Past that, he's not the most scientifically knowledgeable president we've had, but we do have treaties against developing biological weapons.

As far as making the VP a diversity hire, well, I'll generalize, but the left likes to divide people up and treat them differently by race and sex.

[Captain Crimson]

Well, I'm going to drop the question here anyway. I'm sure Wedgius will see it once they get in.

The question is this. What do you make of Mr. 45's comments that our nuclear weapons are going to waste by not being put to use? I'm not certain if he has ever said this, though I'm pretty sure he would probably think the same thing about biological weapons. And before you counter back it's speculative, yeah, it is. That's why this is a question, to gauge your thoughts. But at any rate, that he has said that about nuclear weapons would mean he is consistent if he felt the same about biological weapons. I've personally met his voters who feel that they're going to waste. So it is at least a sentiment he's stirred among his base.

And yet, as I had pointed out to this voter, our stores of virus samples are not being put to waste just because we're not using them to kill millions of non-combatants, they're used for research methods as prevention if biological weapons were to be used on us and also to pinpoint possible commonalities to other viruses, to explore medical treatment plans and what other beneficial uses genetically modified viruses may have in the long run. Do you feel that Mr. 45 is truly aware about this? I mean, his remark about nukes shows someone who's inconsistent to reality, because that would spread so much fallout, it makes the ensuing long-term effects above short-term benefits, whatever you can argue, absolutely unfeasible. Chernobyl is still Exhibit A to that.

I haven't been able to find a quote from Prez 45 saying that. Past that, he's not the most scientifically knowledgeable president we've had, but we do have treaties against developing biological weapons.

As far as making the VP a diversity hire, well, I'll generalize, but the left likes to divide people up and treat them differently by race and sex.

Oh, most likely. My point was, however, if he had said that about nuclear weapons, isn't it so unreasonable to think he might feel the same about biological weapons?

Yeah, this is why political extremism doesn't appeal to me, though the commentary about how we are to be called bigots for criticizing who Mr. Biden's pick is going to be (we can ALL see it coming) was meant to be separate from my question to you, sorry! Should've clarified better.

It is still fallacious reasoning nevertheless. With that logic, why not criticize Mr. Biden on the fact he is guilty, knows he is, and is choosing a woman to blow off the allegations that were likely to come? He also doesn't need a black woman VP since he's already doing well among black voters, so-called, and thus why would he do that? Perhaps to make up for his own gaffes on this in the past.

I still find it so amusing that when a democrat responds with a GOP style talking point, that the leftists just blow it off. "I don't trust it, I find the timing convenient," etc, et al... and personally, while I believe the allegations against Mr. 45, I also believe them against Mr. Biden. The whole upper echelons of power are rotten as H. This is why hate against both parties and the established system is reaching a fevered peak. This has to be addressed or it's only going to get worse in the long run.

[J!!]

Setting aside all the actual issues and important things for just one moment, can we acknowledge 'ol Joe at least knows how to look presidential?



I know it's stupid and silly and superficial, but still, I kinda miss that.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Yeah I'll vote for the one who wears a mask to cover his fat gob during the pandemic instead of close-talking and shaking hands. Maybe if we penetrate the Earth's crust, we can find where the bar has been set.