The Presidential & VP Debates

Biden's peaceful transition promise would be more meaningful if that party stood up to actually stop mob violence this year or support the people risking themselves in that position. It had to be dragged out of him and I dont believe he will actually stop any defunding.

That and the media driving up hate completely turned me off supporting them. They do the same things they accuse Trump of doing, "adding gasoline to every fire." Raise the tension, defund the response, blame Trump and leave the people completely screwed over.

In Biden's suggested solution to policing, the captain will call security and Deanna Troi ( without even her betazoid abilities ) is going to show up. I don't know how they think they can get that imaginary process right when the basic policing needs improvement already. I'm not even a Republican voter just someone annoyed by what I've seen this year. This should have been a slam dunk against Trump it's the opposite

 

The only way to handle Trump with more grace is not to try to debate him.

And I agree.

 

You're conflating two completely separate issues. The peaceful transfer of power between incoming and outgoing presidential administrations as we have always maintained in the US (until Donald Trump called it into question) has absolutely nothing to do with completely justified public protests against systemic racism and injustice in law enforcement and the judicial system.

Biden has called for an end to the violence, which represents a small percentage of the overall protests, and just as often is provoked by police escalation and unnecessary militarization.

Nothing got dragged out of him, and quite frankly it's kind of hilarious that you're painting him as being anti-law enforcement since the progressive wing of the Democrats have painted him as being (using his past voting record) as excessively pro-law enforcement.

Biden doesn't support defunding the police in the hyperbolic sense you're using, but he does support redistributing some funds to improve social services and mental health and withholding funds from departments with issues or which don't meet certain standards.

The claim that he did support defunding was based on a doctored video posted to Twitter by Rep. Steve Scalise and retweeted by Trump.
https://www.bbc.com/news/election-us-2020-53997196

So Joe Biden is responsible for the alleged behavior of the media now and you won't vote for him as a result? Again, like above, you're conflating two unrelated issues.

Social workers won't show up when there's an armed robbery, for one example. That's nonsense. Conventional policing will still remain intact. That's not what the (unfortunately named) "Defund the police" movement means to most of those who advocate for it.

What it does mean is that untrained and armed police will not be the first on the scene to deal with people with mental health issues and wind up shooting them because they don't know how to deescalate the situation without resorting to lethal force. Officers don't want to handle those calls either but because we have such a shitty healthcare and social work system they're often forced to be the first ones on call to handle it. That's what defunding the police means. Redistributing funds to provide for more social workers and mental health professional to also go on those calls and to engage in preventative treatment and checkups so that it doesn't devolve into a fatal situation.

 

The two are related (for me at least) because if he wont denounce violence until weeks later, I dont believe he would stand up for a peaceful transition either at the time when it would matter. The democrat leadership's response to situations like the looting of Chicago or Kenosha when it was in progress was disturbing.

The mechanics of defunding being implemented is probably as badly planned and confused as the name of the movement's message, those wanting a mix of defund abolish or redistribute. A social worker won't be able to handle most situations without backup when within moments the situation can become dangerous for them. In TNG's world yes but we are not there yet.

 

You're buying into some false right wing memes and tweets claiming he didn't say anything denouncing or discouraging violence when he did, immediately.

https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-...otests-in-the-last-three-months-idUSKBN25V2O1

The process hasn't even begun yet in earnest and you've already declared it a failure. Of course proposals are nebulous at an early stage. That's why you get experts to figure out the details and come up with a formal plan for implementation and then gradually make the changes. But that requires a pledge by politicians, police, and the public to actually make an effort to reform policing and social work.

And no is talking about throwing social workers into dangerous situations without police backup if necessary. They would just be present to provide an chance to deescalate the situation first before resorting to untrained and armed police instead. Too many people in general, but disproportionately black people, are being shot and killed when their families call the police for assistance because their autistic son is having a meltdown or their schizophrenic son is having hallucinations. It shouldn't be the job of police to be the first point of contact in this situations, even if they might need to be there in a support role.

This is better for police too if people took a moment to get past the "Defund the police" moniker and actually examine some of the proposals.

 

If only schwarzenegger would be able to run for president...
I mean, the rule "you have to be born here to be president" is really stupid.
Imagine somebody like gandhi 2.0 or so would migrate to the USA when hes 2 yrs old, and just cause of those 2 years he will never be able to run for president.

 

I don't find the rule stupid. I also don't think it will ever be amended.

 

I go by local news and living in the area, and what they were covering. Why no coverage if that's true? He should be all over it.

I would expect there to be support from police if this plan would help them. It would be good to see a formal plan otherwise this seems like a reasonable idea only a few are saying while the other half, the people actually driving it are simply saying fuck the police.

They announced they were coming up with a plan to stop rioters after the second time Chicago was looted. The idea of a nebulous plan to get some experts shift resources away from police, I am not buying they can handle it well.

 

OK, I'm just trying to figure out if you are really interested in discussing things or just playing some kind of a game where you get a rise out of people and then walk away. There are such posters out there.

It's not wrong, but the reasons you've given appear to put the blame for your reluctance to discuss it on the other participants; essentially an expression of no confidence in the ability of the other posters and the moderators to maintain a civil discussion.

Yeah, it's a symptom of a broken party. The Republican party was already seriously dysfunctional if it was ripe for such a takeover. I'd place the blame for that on pursuit of a media strategy above all else for the past 30 years, instead of a political or governing strategy. The GOP effectively outsourced leadership of their party to Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Bill O'Reilly et al. In pursuit of ratings these media figures sensationalized, conspiracy-theorized and racialized non-stop, and if there wasn't a big enough Democrat target handy they'd turn on Republicans, too, for not being pure enough or for working with the other side. It didn't matter if anyone had firm policy ideas; just point at the other side and shout about how bad they are. Trump just went where much of the base already was. Republican politicians saw this fire coming but let it go, it got away from them, and many will be scorched by it before it burns itself out.

Whether the entire system is broken, we'll get a good idea on that in the next few months.

 

I don't actually disagree with any of this.

Though I will say the Democrats only have a split between two wings. The Clinton/Biden wing and the Sanders/AOC wing (yes, I know technically Sanders isn't a Democrat). So the party will be tugged by both sides every time, reaching something in-between that neither side fully likes.

The Republicans, OTOH, had a complete Hostile Takeover by Trump. So once he's gone, they'll be stuck with having to explain why they backed Trump's positions. And they'll be stuck doing that for an entire generation. Siding with Trump on anything will become an almost universal black mark for them.

But it would be nice if other parties actually had a chance at getting elected to more positions in the government.

 

I have a feeling this will only be true if they don’t have another hate monger waiting in the wings.

 

I literally provided you with a fact-checking article from a reputable international news service that contained the quotes, dates and links of Biden saying those things and yet you just keep coming back with excuses for why you're going to stick with your original erroneous assumption that it didn't happen.

You have no interest in facts or the truth. You just want validation of your first knee jerk negative reaction based on limited information.

You would expect police departments to enthusiastically support budget cuts? Since when has that ever happened?

It's better for police because it will take them off being the first responder and follow-up service on mental health issues, but there was always going to be resistance from police administrations and unions that have the most to gain from higher budgets and more personnel.

Also, they're going to resist taking away all the surplus military-grade hardware and armored vehicles they've been given from Iraq and Afghanistan, but that needs to happen.

That's not true of most of the BLM leadership either, but do you understand how that's a valid reaction to have to the continued disproportionate shootings, abuse and harassment of black people on a daily basis at the hands of police?

You keep acting like this is all happening in a vacuum for no reason and the police haven't provoked the reaction with their frequent excessive force and murder of minorities. Try having a little empathy for why the protesters feel the way they do.

 

OK I posted this here no problem-- right this is what happened when I posted it on FB

so I only got one person replying and they said not true.. right --- then I stated where I got the information from-- right? (see above image) and then they state that I guess Booker is a loser and two faces? I mean at this point it is time to unfriend this person but where did cory booker get his information that I might be able to state that-- and-- then unfriend this person?

 

Was that "-200,000" figure before or after the Covid19 pandemic destroyed the economy? Because that wasn't Trump's doing.

 

It happened on his watch. Besides, Trump was the one who said Obama didn’t take Ebola seriously when we had a total of 11 deaths from it.

 

A fitting description for a lot of what went down this year.

But seriously I do want the truth so I appreciate the link. It is slightly uplifting to be honest. The first duty of every Starfleet officer is to the truth, whether it be scientific, personal, or historical truth.

 

Anyway, Trump has Covid-19. This is unfortunate but, at the same time, he invited it himself by discouraging so many people from wearing masks and wanting to be seen wearing one as little as possible.

If he recovers, I hope he begins to take the pandemic more seriously than he has in the past. I hope he learns from this. I hope his supporters begin to realize they're not invincible, it's not imaginary, and it's very much real.

Defying a virus is not like defying a person. The virus doesn't care.

 

• Trump is wrong about the job gains on his watch; the actual increase is about 450,000 prior to the pandemic.

• As for Obama and Biden, they saw gains of 916,000 if you start counting with the recovery from the Great Recession, which is the fairest comparison if you also ignore the losses under Trump during the pandemic.

https://www.politifact.com/factchec...-debate-donald-trump-overstates-manufacturin/

yep a friend posted this in the responses to this on my fb timeline. I guess after the pandemic it is really really bad ---

 

Trump is 74 years old, so statistically he has about a 96% chance of recovery. Given that he's healthy and will obviously have attentive health care, the chances are probably higher for him.

 

This is Trump we're talking about. He'll turn around and say that the media was lying about him having COVID (even though he himself tweeted about it), or that it wasn't that bad (even if he almost dies), or something else doublethink-y. And if he does die, the conspiracy freaks will say the "Deep State" killed him.

For my part, I hope he does live through it, just by the skin of his teeth, and that he has one of those cases that takes MONTHS to finally clear. Not that this would teach him any empathy, but he owes a lot of families for his bullshit over this virus, and there ain't an afterlife for him to pay up in, so....