1 1
Phil1111

The 2020 Election trump v. Biden

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, billvon said:

There are no guarantees on anything.

But we have a clear choice.  On the one side, we have a president whose support of white nationalists, his admonition to police to be more violent, and his use of shock troops to gas and beat protesters for photo ops has vastly exacerbated the problem.  And his solution to the problem?  More of that.

On the other side we have a candidate who will take a different direction.

Let's say you're a CEO and you hire a director of HR. He starts making lots of jokes about women and minorities.  He explains to you that he is not sexist or racist - "NOT AT ALL!  HOW DARE YOU! but women can be real bitches sometimes amirite?" and he has plans to increase productivity and make your company the best in its field.

Four years later, there are a dozen lawsuits against the company for sexual harassment and discrimination against veterans, the disabled and minorities.  He explains that the right path forward is to hire dozens of lawyers to defend the company and crush those complainers under the heels of justice, while changing nothing else about the company, because he has a perfect HR department.

Meanwhile another guy has applied.  He explains that your director of HR, by promulgating anti-women and anti-minority sentiments in the company, has led to the lawsuits.  He has a different plan, one that focuses on harassment training and culture change.  He was successful doing this as assistant to the HR lead at his last company.

What path do you choose?

Lets say you own that business and all your employees are now out of work, and their families are destitute, because some people broke through the glass and destroyed everything they didn't take.

OR - 

You saw this coming and decided to protect your business.

Which path do you choose?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, olofscience said:

So the doomsday scenario is the riots already happening under Trump will happen with Biden?

It can't be guaranteed that they'll stop under Biden, but Trump is feeding the flames and Biden isn't. It's not hard to figure out who will be worse.

By election time, it is likely that the rioting and looting will have mostly stopped.

How many people's lives and livelihoods will have been destroyed because of these people?

Why is it wrong to protect against that?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
3 minutes ago, billvon said:

I am not surprised at all that you refuse to answer the question.  It would reveal some pretty basic dissonances in your logic.

Are you a fan of leading questions?

Because . . . I noticed you didn't answer mine either.

Edited by turtlespeed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

Your post is inaccurate, and thus, you lie as well.

Here is an example: (Maybe you missed this)

 

 

 

As far as Kenosha, No - I haven't seen any demands coming from Kenosha.

 

I just quoted the demands from the protest organisers in Kenosha.

And my post was accurate - there were no demands for segregation coming from Kenosha and you've admitted as such.

You're quoting demands from Seattle which don't represent the majority view of the BLM movement at all. Selectively focusing on a tiny minority and attributing to the entire movement? You're being dishonest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

By election time, it is likely that the rioting and looting will have mostly stopped.

How much are you willing to bet on that?

7 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

How many people's lives and livelihoods will have been destroyed because of these people?

Why is it wrong to protect against that?

It's not wrong to protect against that - you're making a strawman argument again because nobody said that. But murdering people exercising their 1st Amendment right is not "protecting against that".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, olofscience said:

I just quoted the demands from the protest organisers in Kenosha.

And my post was accurate - there were no demands for segregation coming from Kenosha and you've admitted as such.

You're quoting demands from Seattle which don't represent the majority view of the BLM movement at all. Selectively focusing on a tiny minority and attributing to the entire movement? You're being dishonest.

You are misguided.

I actually agree with a lot of the demands that came out of the list.

The segregative parts, not so much.

Share this post


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

How much are you willing to bet on that?

It's not wrong to protect against that - you're making a strawman argument again because nobody said that. But murdering people exercising their 1st Amendment right is not "protecting against that".

The sentiment is pretty clear.  Anyone that is anti protest, anti looting, or anti riots, should stay away.

Share this post


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

The sentiment is pretty clear.  Anyone that is anti protest, anti looting, or anti riots, should stay away.

Again, you're making it up. You're imagining things. Seriously, stop.

Biden has repeatedly condemned the looting and rioting, if that helps: https://edition.cnn.com/2020/08/31/politics/joe-biden-pittsburgh-violence-speech/index.html

Share this post


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

Again, you're making it up. You're imagining things. Seriously, stop.

Biden has repeatedly condemned the looting and rioting, if that helps: https://edition.cnn.com/2020/08/31/politics/joe-biden-pittsburgh-violence-speech/index.html

I'm not referencing Biden.  Specifically the crowd here.

Share this post


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

Because you are stating as fact that the demands from Seattle, "don't represent the majority view of the BLM movement at all."

I'm pretty sure. Many of the posters here are supportive of BLM, including myself, and NONE of them have ever mentioned segregation. You were the first one to mention it and you are now pointing to it like your argument depends on it.

2 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

I'm not referencing Biden.  Specifically the crowd here.

Well, then we can take a survey of the crowd here. Who here thinks that being anti rioting and anti looting is wrong?

 

 

 

 

...<crickets>...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
6 minutes ago, olofscience said:

Well, then we can take a survey of the crowd here. Who here thinks that being anti rioting and anti looting is wrong?

I think answering trolls is wrong. Several people have already pointed out how ridiculous his position is. Over and over. Can't you learn?

Edited by gowlerk
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

We demand the hospitals and care facilities of Seattle employ black doctors and nurses specifically to help care for black patients.

This would be because studies have shown repeatedly that black people have their health concerns diminished and dismissed at a much, much higher rate than white people when seeking medical care. Having black staff on hand is one way to try and address this and ensure people are getting adequate/appropriate care.

To spin this as a demand for segregation is to seek the worst possible interpretation without investigating the rationale at all. Be better.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(edited)
44 minutes ago, olofscience said:

I'm pretty sure. Many of the posters here are supportive of BLM, including myself, and NONE of them have ever mentioned segregation. You were the first one to mention it and you are now pointing to it like your argument depends on it.

Well, then we can take a survey of the crowd here. Who here thinks that being anti rioting and anti looting is wrong?

 

 

 

 

...<crickets>...

<facepalm>

Edited by turtlespeed

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, mistercwood said:

This would be because studies have shown repeatedly that black people have their health concerns diminished and dismissed at a much, much higher rate than white people when seeking medical care. Having black staff on hand is one way to try and address this and ensure people are getting adequate/appropriate care.

To spin this as a demand for segregation is to seek the worst possible interpretation without investigating the rationale at all. Be better.

I have never heard that. That doesn't mean much, there are a lot of things out there I'm ignorant of.

If it is true, what is the cause?  That would make for a lot of racist doctors.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, turtlespeed said:

I have never heard that. That doesn't mean much, there are a lot of things out there I'm ignorant of.

If it is true, what is the cause?  That would make for a lot of racist doctors.

https://www.health.harvard.edu/blog/racism-discrimination-health-care-providers-patients-2017011611015

https://www.americanbar.org/groups/crsj/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/the-state-of-healthcare-in-the-united-states/racial-disparities-in-health-care/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK220347/

Multiple factors relating to cause, but a core one would be implicit bias (as opposed to overt racism).

This is what I meant by "Be better". You saw a call for more black medical staff to be available to treat black people and didn't even look into why that would be a priority - you just assumed it meant segregation and charged on with that assumption.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jakee said:
3 hours ago, Coreece said:

People here including you say that you condemn the violence, rioting, looting, arson. . .BUT you know, reasons. . . because trump, because racism, because nobody's listening, because this is just a way to express a reasonable "demand that police stop killing minorities, or that it's just like the tea party, etc, etc, blah blah blah. . .

Everything after the BUT is an invention that exists only in the minds of you, Turtlespeed and Tucker Carlson.

Oh stop flattering me, lol.

2 hours ago, jakee said:

No-one else here has said anything of the sort -  your entire accusation is unfair, not just your tone.

Oh come on, I just said that there is no excuse for the rioting and Jerry just said that there was because we don't know what it's like to be black. . .John posted the pic likening it to the tea party.

Both Wendy and Bill posted thoughtful replies as to the reasons why it's happening, and I get all that.  I understand that's the reason - but at the same time it's like so what, everyone has reasons for their criminality. 

Anyone that gets it understands those are the reasons, and I think you lose an opportunity to find common ground when you belabor that point rather than just condemning it outright and moving on to the more positive aspects/reasons for peaceful protest when discussing these issues with people or business owners that don't get it.  And that's mainly what I had in mind when I said it undermines legitimate efforts.

 

3 hours ago, jakee said:

The accompanying riots don't seem to be deligitimizing anything, probably because most people aside from you and the T's can easily distinguish the legitimate protesters from the opportunist rioters.

See, it's you who's in their own head making things up.  Where did I ever lump together legitimate protesters and opportunist rioters?

Take for example my post about rioting and olof's sarcastic reply as if it's all just about the demand that police stop killing minorities.  Or Bill's reply about using the reasoning behind the riots as a means to understand the issues and end them, rather than just condemning the rioting and using the peaceful protests as a means to explain those issues.

Those two replies lack distinguishing more than anything that I've ever said on the subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, billvon said:

Right.  No one is saying there are excuses.  Just reasons.  By understanding them we can start to bring an end to it.  By ignoring them, and saying "well they are just violent evil thugs who should be stopped, arrested and/or killed" then we just make it worse.

I agree, but I think you lose an opportunity to find much needed common ground when you don't just condemn the rioting outright and use the reasoning behind peaceful protests to bring about that understanding, especially when discussing it with people who by default automatically think like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, SkyDekker said:

For a country built on the threat of violence keeping the peace, built on violence being a solution to problems, it sure gets upset when violence is used.

The 2nd Amendment specifically calls for violence and the threat of violence to keep government in line.

Keyword there is government.  I suppose I always saw that as being a somewhat more organized threat with a specific goal in mind, rather than just random acts of violence against citizens and business owners that really have nothing to do with the problem.  I see it similar to what the "Not Fucking Around" guys did at Stone Mountain - or perhaps even if they took it a bit further and took control of the park and gave a list of demands.  Or maybe even something like the protesters in Michigan when they stormed the Capital.

Share this post


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

John posted the pic likening it to the tea party.

In what way is the destruction and theft of private property during the tea party different from the examples of destruction and theft carried out recently by a few of the protesters?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Coreece said:

Anyone that gets it understands those are the reasons, and I think you lose an opportunity to find common ground when you belabor that point rather than just condemning it outright and moving on to the more positive aspects/reasons for peaceful protest when discussing these issues with people or business owners that don't get it.  And that's mainly what I had in mind when I said it undermines legitimate efforts.

Some people want to focus on what is wrong rather than on the central message of the protestors. You can not deny that people in the street doing peaceful protest rarely accomplishes change. People do not give up power over others voluntarily. It took federal troops to accomplish a temporary desegregation of the school system in most of the United States. These are the facts of life.

Share this post


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.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

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.

1 1