Alright, let's play your little game I suppose. I'll put in the energy and effort one time though it is becoming increasingly clear that it's just going to be an enormous waste of time, but there are so many fallacies, falsehoods and even lies in here that I can't just let them stand like that. Let's start at the top again and do it your way:
This at least gives the Democrats a viable option to nearly guarantee a victory against Trump, if they're smart enough to take it.
Evidence? You demand evidence for every little thing, stuff you could easily google, so I'll return the favor. This is an outrageous claim so you better have the evidence to support it.
And Biden does? He's got the "kindly, bumbling old grandpa" thing going, but that's only a half step away from his creepy serial sniffing of little girls' hair.
It's a subjective assessment, but yes, Biden is a million times more charismatic than Phillips. Need not
evidence for that, since it is an opinion
I guess you don't ever walk through the liquor aisle in your local store...?
His adoptive father is a household name; Dean isn't.
Most voters aren't policy wonks, and if given the option they vote for someone who seems reasonable and sounds like they make sense, and have some focus on the issues most affecting them. If they're not given that option, then they vote for the person they hate the least.
While this is mostly true Phillips' only argument is that he's younger. Hell, he keeps praising Biden but simply says that Biden is too old (which is true, but that doesn't make Phillips a good choice). He brings nothing else to the table.
People are getting their backs broken by high prices on staple consumables and high interest rates on their credit cards and mortgages. Phillips is focusing on that, Biden isn't.
Objectively incorrect. Bidenomics is a dumb term, but Biden has done a lot to improve the economy, but he doesn't get any of the recognition for it.
In 2018 he beat a Republican incumbent for a congressional seat that had been red since 1961. In 2020 he was reelected with about 55% of the vote. In 2022 he was reelected with about 60% of the vote. A lot of moderate voters who lean Republican do in fact like him and would be willing to vote for him, which is critical in a general election.
That's nice and all, but worthless to the discussion about if he's effective or not. He is part of the House Problem Solvers Caucus who funnily enough haven't solved any problems. He hasn't passed any meaningful legislation, despite the fact that he is more moderate and tries to work with Republicans. Biden on the other hand has had quite the effective first term, considering that he had to deal with the Trump admin's problems as well as the pandemic. He also got the most votes ever, so if we care about voting numbers those are important and valid as well. Can't pick and choose whatever suits you best.
Also, while we're at it:
Phillips has voted 100% in line with Biden. The only thing Phillips brings to the table is being younger. We'll see if that makes him in any way popular, but I severely doubt it.
If you're talking about primary voters, any conservative Democrats who are left over would likely prefer Phillips to Biden.
Evidence?
If you're talking about general election voters, Phillips would get almost every Biden voter except the extreme left, plus likely a larger number of moderate independents and never-Trumpers.
Evidence?
But we'll have to see what the polls tell us after Phillips gets out there more.
Right.
Yes, but it would also be idiotic to overweigh it. Even with the incumbency advantage Biden is losing by a significant margin vs. Trump in recent polling and over two thirds of self-identified Democratic voters want someone other than Biden to be the nominee. Ignoring those facts would be foolish. Jimmy Carter lost to Ronald Reagan despite incumbency advantage, and he also had major inflation problems on his watch.
Out of the most recent polls Biden is winning 4 out of 14, losing 6 and the rest are considered even match-ups. Except the UMass poll, none of them are "by a significant margin" and the UMass
is by a significant margin in favor of
Biden.
Progressives often assume the appeal of their ideology is broader than it actually is, because they tend to self-select progressives for friends. The country as a whole is still digesting gay marriage, and frankly isn't ready for the wave of trans issues being aggressively pushed by the far left. Push too hard and focus on the wrong things and you'll get a second Trump administration.
Conservatism is inherently unpopular as an ideology. They are a loud and obnoxious minority, but they aren't actually gaining numbers. The only way conservatives can win is by banking on voter apathy, as well as gerrymandering and tactics that take away voting rights from citizens. Most progressive policies are widely popular if they are presented to people without saying that they are by progressives.
Medicare for All is supported by 70% of Americans.
90% of all Americans (including 91% of Republican voters) want to slash drug prices.
Two-thirds of all Americans favor expanding Social Security – not just maintaining it, but expanding it. Republicans favor the concept by a 2-1 margin.
A strong majority of Americans favor doubling the minimum wage to a living wage of $15 an hour. Seven out of 10 Republican voters favor raising the minimum wage.
75% of Americans are in favor of higher taxes for the wealthiest and large corporations. Sixty percent of Americans favor a wealth tax on those with more than $50 million in assets.
And before you ask for evidence, you can google stuff yourself as well. I'm already spending enough time to answer everything in detail; I don't have enough time to provide a source for every single little thing as well.
The second bolded part I'll focus on further down.
What are my biases, exactly, and how would you know me well enough to psychoanalyze me?
You have an extremely obvious anti-Biden bias and one doesn't need to know you or to "psychoanalyze" you. Give us a basic amount of respect and be honest, your comments are clearly visible here and show that you are anti-Biden.
Note: I didn't claim that he was immensely popular. Just that he's more popular than you seem to think or claim.
We can see his approval rating here. Considering how divided America is nowadays and that Democrats won't approve of Republican presidents and vice versa, and his numbers aren't as bad as previously thought.
That's not a subject that can be answered by polls or studies because it's not something that is being asked. Merchandise sales for a campaign obviously don't translate to actual success but we can at the very least see that the Biden campaign has embraced the meme and has had financial success.
OK, first of all, this is a very weird “guilt by association” charge, and I’m not sure what you’re even trying to say here. Are you trying to imply that I’m an alt-right troll, or are you just “othering” me because I’m not parroting progressive dogma?
I’m a liberal, but I’m not on board with the anti-intellectual, anti-free-speech left wing that’s currently in vogue.
Quit your persecution complex. I'm not saying any of those things. I'm simply stating the observable fact that you keep using phrases that are pushed by the alt and far right. That doesn't mean that you align with them. Maybe their propaganda and smear campaigns worked and convinced you? Only you could answer that, but I'll go into detail further down to explain what I mean with right wing propaganda and how you keep repeating it. I'm simply calling out what you are publicly posting, so no need for fake outrage.
Also, it's adorable to try to claim the left wing is anti-intellectual. I'd ask for evidence, but I know that we fundamentally disagree on some concepts so there's no point. Anti-free-speech is also quite the dishonest framing. There's no reason for
absolute free speech in the sense that hate speech has no justification whatsoever. And before you start with the slippery slopes: Hate speech is not vague; it's easily defined and countries like Germany that have hate speech laws have a higher freedom index than the US. Free speech absolutism is naive at best and dangerous at worst because it emboldens bigotry.
Biden is on camera sniffing and kissing one little girl after another. This is well-established behavior of his. Is it innocent? Probably. Is it creepy? Absolutely. The fact that you try to label me rather than addressing the facts at hand speaks volumes about your “argument” here. Just sayin’.
So far you have barely provided any facts so there isn't much to address. What's your
evidence for this "well-established behavior"?
Because so far you that's no fact.
In fact, we can see that one of the most recent examples was
edited and a fabrication. Almost as if there aren't even any allegations against him by little girls or their families. Almost as if that's just one of the more common talking points of the far right, without any evidence except edited videos and out of context pictures. So much for "facts", but moving on.
Evidence? How about if we wait for the polling first.
That's my personal opinion, so there is no evidence. But yes, let's wait for the polls.
Nice quoting method there. Seems dangerously close to mocking the mentally challenged, which is a cancelable offense if I remember correctly.
Nah, you're simply not familiar with that typing being commonly used online to indicate heavy sarcasm. Has nothing to do with mentally challenged folks, it was born out of Spongebob meme of all things lol. Also, "cancel culture" isn't a thing. It's the consequence of one's actions catching up to them. Take a look at all the people who have claimed to have been cancelled, yet they are just as loud and present as before. And if we're talking about regular people losing their jobs for questionable behavior: This has always been a thing and it is common sense that if you don't want to lose your job maybe don't post stuff on social media that would get you in trouble with your work place. Right wingers want to be victims so badly that they keep harping about cancel culture to continue their grift.
Again you avoid the substance, dodging Biden’s own lack of charisma and pretending you’ve made an argument. My argument is that Phillips doesn’t have a charisma deficit compared to Biden, Phillips doesn’t have the issue of looking old and confused at almost every turn like Biden, and he has a proven record of winning elections among a majority-conservative-leaning electorate by progressively increasing margins, which Biden doesn’t have.
You claim that Biden has a lack of charisma. I disagree with that. There's no "substance" to avoid. As for the bolded part, like previously mentioned: Biden has the track record of beating Trump and gaining the most amount of votes in the history of the US. That's another example of your anti-Biden bias, where you cherry-pick your examples. And like I said before, Biden has passed bills, Phillips hasn't. Simply having a seat doesn't mean that someone is effective. Or are we going to say next that Jim Jordan is an effective politician?
Just as Trump would have to claim most of the moderates in the right states to win, which he was able to do once before. If the Democrat is more appealing to moderates than Trump, then they have an electoral advantage.
Like we saw before Biden's numbers aren't as bad as you claimed. Furthermore, polls the last few years have been rather unreliable, so I wouldn't take them as gospel. And let's not forget that Trump has never won the popular vote and could only become President due to the Electoral College.
He doesn’t look confused or sound like a doddering fool.
While Biden has had an obvious decline, given his age, I disagree that he sounds like a "doddering fool". The man has had a stutter for his whole life. He isn't an orator like Obama, but compared to Trump (who is likely going to be his opponent) he is perfectly coherent and clear. Just because of flubs here and there doesn't mean he is a "doddering fool".
He’s a successful businessman, which neutralizes any argument Trump could try to make about applying supposed business acumen to improve the economy.
In that sense yes. On the other hand one could easily weaponize it against him by pointing out that Phillips is one of the wealthiest (or even the wealthiest? Haven't kept up to date) House representatives, yet hasn't passed any legislation. You know how people feel about "career politicians", whether he actually is one or not, right?
He doesn’t carry Biden’s inflation baggage.
That's true, but also a disingenuous framing, considering that historically Dems have been better for the economy and have to repair the damage done by the GOP. Inflation has sunk thanks to Biden. We can only imagine how bad things would've gotten if Trump had won the presidency.
He has a record of consistently running and winning in a right-leaning electorate.
Which doesn't inherently mean that he can apply that nation wide.
Marianne Williamson sounds like a flake. RFK Jr. is damaged goods due to his anti-vax views, and he already bailed on the party to run as an independent. Cenk Uygur would have to win a court battle to even qualify for eligibility because he’s not a natural-born citizen. No one else has declared.
Because, in my opinion, Biden is the only viable candidate for 2024.
I would argue that they are always escalated by the right wing, but the left does their fair share of provocation.
Now will come the most tedious part, because your following paragraph is full of misrepresentations, lies and an incredibly disingenuous framing. Also to make it very clear: Anecdotes are statistically useless, yet all your examples rely on anecdotes.
The right wing didn’t make up “defund the police”.
I'll concede that "defund the police" as a slogan is terrible, especially when most advocates aren't even for abolishing or full defunding. That said I believe it to be an obviously important change that needs to happen.
They didn’t make up public schools separating children by race and labeling the white kids as “oppressors” just to make a stilted point about race relations.
Is that a widespread thing? Or just an anecdote that gets pushed by the right wing to frame the narrative? Hint, it's the latter. Unless you believe all people to be a monolith and that one should extrapolate from the actions of an individual to the actions of the group.
They didn’t make up the violent rioting that’s accompanied a number of BLM protests, especially in Minneapolis where a number of long-standing local businesses were burned to the ground.
Ah, my favorite example of idiotic far right argument with no basis in reality and a heavy distortion of actual facts.
You want facts? Let's start then:
The George Floyd protests were the largest in US history.
The were overwhelmingly peaceful, with
93% of them being peaceful.
Out of the remaining 7% that turned violent, the violence was often started by
police, not by
protesters.
Conflating the protesters with the rioters is wrong and disingenuous. Those aren't the same groups of people and the people who wanted to riot would've done so under other circumstances as well. They were looking for excuses.
Now comes the fun part: We
know for a
fact that many of the riots were sabotaged and instigated by far right agitators and accelerationists. That's what I'm talking about when I say that you keep using right wing propaganda in your comments.
Here's some more useful information compiled with links that explain the details of the whole situation.
They didn’t make up progressive prosecutors refusing to charge petty theft crimes, leading to people just walking into stores with trash bags and emptying the shelves with no fear of prosecution.
Again, anecdotes. Evidence? Studies? And don't give us a single YouTube or Twitter video.
Except true believers often convince themselves that their views are “objectively” good, whether that’s actually the case or not. The only way to get to objective truth is to take off the team jerseys, drop the posing, take a hard, critical look at the facts and reasoning, and be willing to publicly admit when your own people are wrong.
That's nice and all, but inherently meaningless. This is quite simple: The right wing is trying to take away voting rights, the bodily autonomy of women as well as constant attacks on minorities, particularly the LBTQIA community. The left wing has actual policies beyond "being reactionary". Fighting climate change, equal rights for everyone, better healthcare, lessening the wealth disparity. These are objective and verifiable facts. It has nothing to do with "team jerseys". Now, probably more than ever before, it is as clear as possible that the Dems are the vastly better choice in every respect compared to the GOP. Given the state of the world I would argue that conservatism is detrimental and the only way to move on would be to embrace progressive ideals.
There are plenty of first-hand testimonies out there from parents,
Oh, you mean anecdotes?
as well as institutional videos showing how to do some of these exercises, for example:
Just like that. And that isn't even CRT, which for the record is a university-leval course in the context of legal studies, so: no, CRT isn't taught anywhere in schools. Furthermore this video doesn't really say anything. It's a video about white privelege. I don't know how your school experience was, but especially in ethics we discussed a slew of various topics. If I went to school today white privilege might've been one of the topics and it is entirely valid to discuss that.
And plenty of organizations sell school curricula for all K-12 ranges for “anti-bias” training, including
the Anti-Defamation League.
How about you state how that is a negative thing? Because a) I don't see it, and b) this isn't CRT either.
Yes, “CRT” is inaccurate shorthand for what’s actually hyperaggressive DEI/anti-racism curriculum, but it’s the shorthand people are using, and it’s not too far off the mark.
No, it very much is off the mark as described above.
This technicality is what allows educators to claim they aren’t teaching CRT when they’re still injecting hyper-awareness of racial differences and a presumption of pervasive racism in all institutions into their classroom.
If you honestly believe that America has no problems with institutional racism and that there is no value in debating and discussing that then I don't know what to say anymore. Then we'll never be able to agree on anything.
Do many existing power structures produce (mostly) unintentionally racist outcomes? Yes. Should we explore the data around this, look at things critically, and see how we can improve it? Yes.
So far, so good.
Should we start children down that path in elementary and middle school with hamfisted generalizations based on race, implying that people should in fact be judged to some extent on the color of their skin, and not the content of their character? I would argue an emphatic “no”, as that is literally the opposite of Dr. King’s dream.
This isn't what's happening though. And I believe far too many people use children as arguments because it is easy, not because they actually care. Children aren't fragile little things; they can and need to be confronted with difficult topics as they get older. If kids in Germany can learn about the horrors of the Holocaust and turn out fine, kids in the US can learn about the systemic racism prevalent throught the history of the US. Hell, you have states like Florida that try to completely change historical facts and try to downplay the horrors of slavery.
Also, it is quite hilarious that you mention Martin Luther King when he so vehemently would disagree with your comment:
“Often white liberals are unaware of their latent prejudices....
....Yet in spite of this latent prejudice, in spite of the hard reality that many blatant forms of injustice could not exist without the acquiescence of white liberals, the fact remains that a sound resolution of the race problem in America will rest with those white men and women who consider themselves as generous and decent human beings....Nothing can be more detrimental to the health of America at this time than for liberals to sink into a state of apathy and indifference.”
Also, bonus quote, since we talked about the riots earlier:
“But it is not enough for me to stand before you tonight and condemn riots. It would be morally irresponsible for me to do that without, at the same time, condemning the contingent, intolerable conditions that exist in our society. These conditions are the things that cause individuals to feel that they have no other alternative than to engage in violent rebellions to get attention. And I must say tonight that a riot is the language of the unheard. And what is it America has failed to hear? It has failed to hear that the plight of the negro poor has worsened over the last twelve or fifteen years. It has failed to hear that the promises of freedom and justice have not been met. And it has failed to hear that large segments of white society are more concerned about tranquility and the status quo than about justice and humanity.”
This took far too long and too much energy. At this point I'm sure that neither of us is going to gain anything out of this; we simply fundamentally disagree on various concepts so we'll simply have to agree to disagree, because I'm definitely not willing to go back and forth in circles. You can take your time and respond, and I will take the time to read the comment, but I probably won't respond back because I don't ever see us agreeing on these issues. Would rather shitpost about Maiden than to continue with these topics here.
www.politico.com
