Lord Raven
-
Posts
9,206 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Lord Raven
-
-
You don't notice anti immigration rhetoric from africa because it's lumped in with anti black rhetoric somehow. Although african immigrants seem to have much more in common with asians.
-
Even immigrants can be pretty heavily anti-illegal immigration.
(I'll just virtue signal and say that my family and I are not at all among them, but it's a fairly common view that's like "i paid my dues for my citizenship, they should pay theirs")
-
21 minutes ago, Crysta said:
Are we not pro Medicare for All, significantly decriminalizing illegal immigration and anti fracking?
How about wanting those things, or is that just a bridge too far?
We as in the denizens of serenes forest, or we as in the US?
70% of the people want M4A. Great! I still don't think M4A is viable during a Biden presidency. We still lack infrastructure for it, as is my understanding. He's pro-UHC and pro-public option; I thought most of the country was also in favor of UHC. M4A is just shifting to a unicorn wedge. I don't even think Elizabeth Warren could come up with a plan to make M4A within a single presidential term (in fact, her platform was M4A in the long run, but not in the short run), I really don't think Biden or Sanders are anywhere close to being able to do that.
Significantly decriminalizing illegal immigration is a universal value? The country is definitely not in favor of that. Seeing as he's pro-DACA, I'm not really sure what your gripe is unless you want fully open borders or something.
Fracking? He's anti-expansion of fracking. He also has a climate plan to go carbon neutral by 2035...
I mean, I've gone through much of his platform and statements. But this is 10000% the most progressive presidential platform in the post-JFK era. This country is just way more conservative than you think, and people expecting M4A from any administration within the next 4-6 years are pretty much dreaming. A public option allows us to still use medical resources, it just doesn't go medicare quality, but it still helps decelerate rising costs while we can... expand healthcare infrastructure greatly so we can actually have medicare for all.
Ultimately part of the fucking issue with M4A is that we lost literally a decade of change to improve the ACA and our healthcare infrastructure. And we fucking didnt, because of Mitch McConnell. So in the end, it's really Mitch's fault we won't have M4A by 2024.
-
1 hour ago, Crysta said:
(because lol Biden doesn't)
yes he does lol
you make good takes but you can't even read a platform before saying this? If so, what do the people actually want then? It sounds like his platform matches it pretty well. He did poach policy guys from other D campaigns, after all. What more do you even want?
I'm not even a moderate and it's pretty easy to see Biden/Harris platform is ridiculously progressive, especially for the US.
1 hour ago, Slumber said:I don't know why you'd mention Hillary when she didn't win. She lost the 2008 primary to a candidate who was much further to her left(Again, FOR THE TIME), and then lost the 2016 election. She's not an example of moderate policies winning.
You're comparing 2008 Obama to 2016 Clinton and 2020 Biden. There's nearly a decade rift between them, and you don't have to look very hard to find that both Clinton AND Biden supported staying in Iraq in 2008, and Obama took them both to task regularly over their votes in favor of it during the Bush administration.
Being vocally against the Iraq war in 2008 was not a moderate position because, surprise surprise, most big name democrats, who were still around in 2008, voted in favor of invading Iraq.
Again, I'm looking at these campaigns within the context of the times they took place in. Biden and Clinton were so much closer to the center than Obama was in 2008 that their positions then are nearly unrecognizable to the campaigns they ran in 2016 and 2020.
You're still way off. You need to really read back up on that election, it's not how you remember it. For the record, I brought up Clinton because she was more recent; Kerry and Gore both were in close elections where they were the underdog and with vote fuckery in Ohio and Florida respectively.
Obama was not "much further to her left." https://www.vox.com/2015/6/15/8779449/hillary-clinton-populist-record first result on google. It was a toss-up in terms of their views, and they were very very close to one another in platform. You can find plenty, plenty more but Obama being far more of a leftist than Clinton is definitely far, far, FAR from the truth. The majority of non-foreign policy Obama was in favor of, Clinton was also in favor of in 2008. And then Clinton took up the mantle in 2016, and Biden took it in 2020.
Being vocally against the Iraq War in 2008 was the mainstream position. Not the moderate position. Fucking nobody liked the Iraq War after like 2005 or 2006. If being pro-Iraq War was mainstream, it doesn't explain Bush's 20% approval rating at the time in spite of Iraq. Iraq and Katrina both plummeted Bush's presidency and the Republican party for Obama to swoop in.
Biden and Clinton were much further left than Obama 2008 and 2012. The Clinton campaign was more progressive in 2016.
Regardless, my argument was that if Obama was progressive in 08 because of those platforms, then surely Clinton was also a progressive leftist. Those are very vague platforms and paradigms.
QuoteIf it took nearly a full decade for Obama's policies to be considered this supported within the party, doesn't that indicate that he wasn't just another moderate(At least during the 2008 primaries) and a fair number of his positions were... "progressive", for lack of a better term, for the time period?
Obama's policies were never what you thought they were. You already really do need a refresher; if you think the Iraq War was popular in 2008, you really really really did not pay attention. I'm not meaning to insult your intelligence at all, since I genuinely am surprised to see you post and I remember liking a lot of your posts, but there's this chasm between us and I think you need to spend *a lot* of time looking over the 2008 primaries and the 2008 election in general.
In fact, Obama being painted as some sort of leftist in 2008 is definitely republican revisionism. Not calling you a republican, but you can go to more left-leaning and satirical media of the time (Boondocks comes to mind easily) and you can easily see that your perception is off the mark of the reality of the time.
Also, proof about the Iraq War's popularity: https://www.pewresearch.org/2008/03/19/public-attitudes-toward-the-war-in-iraq-20032008/
It was career suicide in the early 2000s (see: Dixie Chicks). By 2008 it was an anti-Republican wedge.
-
Just now, XRay said:
And when people think of the word "Trump", they think of corruption, hypocrisy, lying, and incompetence. Biden might not be the shining city on a hill, but he does stand on a much higher moral ground compared to Trump.
even with court packing he will still be far above it
let's not kid ourselves. Any governance by someone who isn't a republican will be shit on by the right wing of this country, and bothsides'd by every other media outlet.
-
14 minutes ago, Slumber said:
Clinton is fair, but he also had Gore as his running mate, who is much closer to the left than Clinton was. But Gore wasn't running and he wasn't crazy lefty, so that's besides the point.
I was talking about Hillary. Bill was known for being a third way Democrat at the time, and that was the only way to be competitive against the 90s GOP.
14 minutes ago, Slumber said:And Obama certainly was not a moderate during the primaries. Certainly not actually a huge leftist, but even within the democratic party, he was labeled as a radical leftist compared to Clinton, who was seen as the safe bet for the election.
But their platform wasn't very different. Clinton was a wonk, Obama was an organizer. But they did not differ noticeably in platform.
14 minutes ago, Slumber said:He ran on ideas like universal healthcare(Which he later altered to a public option), something Biden doesn't fully support 12 years later, he rejected PAC and lobby money, was anti-war, was pro-choice and supported stem cell research, supported a public healthcare option, supported more aggressive taxes for the rich and easing taxes on the poor and working classes, and was for aggressively tackling climate change.
Biden supports universal healthcare, he doesn't support M4A.
Either way, you're calling all this leftist when the non-war stuff was Clinton's platform in 2016 and Biden's platform in 2020. So is Obama/Clinton/Biden's campaign leftist or are Obama/Clinton/Biden's campaign moderate?
14 minutes ago, Slumber said:He had some more moderate opinions on things like gay marriage, but his very first primary campaign was not focused on courting moderate voters.
If the argument boils down to "Only moderates can win, because one single moderate democrat has won in the last 40 years", then I really don't see it.
Yeah, again, the Obama admin didn't really come out as pro-same sex marriage until after Biden pretty much said it first.
Your description of Obama's campaign seems to be far divorced from the reality of his campaign, and if it's not far divorced from the reality of his campaign then it appears to be far divorced from the reality of the other campaigns you are criticizing. If Obama was a radical leftist for all those positions in 08, then Clinton and Biden were/are too right now...
Regardless, the Democrats in the 80s were getting blown out for being Democrats and not Reagan. I can also reframe this argument as "moderate" democrats winning the popular vote in all but one election in my lifetime. At some point you wonder if the system is more at fault than the party. I also posit that if Obama in 08 wasn't a moderate, nor were Clinton in 16 and Biden in 20, just based on what you stated.
-
28 minutes ago, Slumber said:
I think a lot of the problem is the talking point of "Only moderates can get elected" keeps getting regurgitated every election cycle. And only democrats keep believing in it, even though the results have been pretty hit or miss.
Hilary presented herself as a moderate in three election cycles, and she lost in every single one. Even the one where she made it past the primaries. Biden's positioned himself as such every time he ran, and we're still waiting to see if he can win against a literal authoritarian fascist.
The issue is that, so far, it's not proven that a candidate other than a moderate can really rack up the votes. Even this year, Sanders lost by an even greater margin than four years ago; at this point, if a progressive can't win their own primary, how do they expect to win a more hostile general election?
Regardless, it's all a matter of framing. Is he a moderate or is he a coalition builder? Clinton was not a coalition builder, and she tried to market herself as progressive in her most recent election. She was also considered more progressive than Obama during their campaign against each other. Obama himself was a moderate too...
It's just hard to make that a data point. I mean, the issue really is that our elections have natural gerrymandering to them, because a 3 million vote advantage in the popular vote shouldn't translate to losing an election...
15 minutes ago, XRay said:Standing on the moral high ground absolutely gives us an edge. Biden is able to maintain his lead over Trump nation wide for the whole year by respecting democratic institutions, traditions, and norms.
A good chunk of respecting norms is reversing them when they're outdated or changing them when they're abused. Norms have been abused then later thrown out the window.
Truthfully, there's not much you really need to stay on the moral high ground in modern America. The issue is whether or not people accept it as the moral high ground; 40% of the country has made it clear they're fine with destroying principles of democracy if they can maintain their minority power, so it's almost a moral necessity to completely flip the system upside its head because of how much it has been corrupted.
-
i love them because that means they're into the real shit
-
14 hours ago, Usana said:
But that isn't what I am saying at all and is a complete strawman of my position. It also ignores that I have stated that I am pressured more and more into attempting tactical voting which would result in not voting 3rd party rather than voting for the person who actually represents me.
It sounds more like a measure to completely negate check and balances so that any party that happens to not have a lame-duck government can be completely dictatorial and force through whatever policies they want regardless of constitutionality or even possibly the will of the people. It would further politicize the court and remove what little legitimacy it happens to have left. It is basically the opposite direction we want to go. Rebalancing the court could potentially be part of further reforms to the court to fix the politicization, but the ideas I have seen bandied around are less fixing the rules so that we don't have such issues in the first place and more flipping the board because one side are frustrated they lost their gamble. Going back to FDR who got to fill 8 seats in the end, If the republicans of the time had gained both branches right after FDR should they have packed the court with 8 extra seats to restore balance? Though you would have thought that would have been a wake up call that something wasn't right and that the system needed to be looked at. A single president really shouldn't be getting that/this much influence over the supreme court.
If the democrats get congress he will be rather limited. Conversely if Biden gets the presidency and congress is republican then he would be rather limited. If a party doesn't have both they are "one that is weak or that falls behind in ability" compared to a party when they do have both. Kinda the definition of lame duck. I am not using the more specific terms of lame duck president or lame duck sessions which are rather more pointed terms. But rather lame duck in the general sense. Clearly I wasn't clear that that was my intent and I'll try to avoid the term in the future, even though it is naturally comes to me, since it appears to cause confusion.
1) the person who actually represents you is your member of congress. You can't realistically expect people to represent their own party let alone 350 million people. Regardless, 2 presidential terms in the 21st century didn't even represent the popular vote, so I'm not sure what you're complaining about.
2) A measure to negate checks and balances? So like literally what the Republicans did by stealing Garland's seat? Or not voting to convict Trump for Burisma? If anything it's to do something radical to *restore* checks and balances. 6-3 court is not a check or balance.
3) It doesn't matter if Congress is limited, we've seen what the president can do and we've seen how much he can just destroy things on a whim. We have 200k deaths and you think any chance of another Trump term will be a lame duck? Even if something veto proof passes, this cracker won't enforce any laws.
A lame duck presidency would at least give us COVID relief. This is far, far, far worse than a lame duck no matter what the circumstances of his election are.
12 hours ago, Crysta said:GOP: We stole the court
DEMs: We're gonna steal it back
GOP: That's not fair
Pundits: Not fair
GOP: We'll just steal it more
DEMs: Ok we won't do it
Pundits: Dems avoid destroying America
GOP: We're gonna steal it more
DEMs: Fuck!
Pundits: So MuCh FoR tHe ToLeRaNt LeFt
Voters: ThEy'Re BoTh BaD hOw CaN i ChOsEI'm done with moderates, quite frankly. I was one myself not too long ago, but their fingerprints are all over this and I don't need any further reminders of how terrible at actual governance they are.
Republicans do not exercise restraint and they're never expected to in the same way the Democrats are. They do not limit themselves because others have chosen to. They exercise every ounce of power they possess. The only reward for abstemiousness is failure.
can we pin comments lol
12 hours ago, XRay said:Without moderates, Democrats do not stand a chance at winning. You cannot govern if you did not even win the election.
This is 2020. This is not 2050. Texas is still purple at best and plenty of boomers are still alive and kicking. Expanding the Court by two every four or eight years when the political pendulum swings the opposite direction does not seem like a good idea in my opinion.
What is the point of expanding the court when Republicans can do the same thing next time during the next election cycle and undo the Court's previous decisions?
I think what Crysta calls a moderate and an actual political moderate are two very different things. Crysta's more aiming at the radical "both sides are the same" bullshit moderates.
Regardless, if republicans won't stop expanding it, democrats will continue afterwards. The whole thing is a looming and vague threat meant to stop the Republicans from jamming through a nominee.
11 hours ago, XRay said:There is a time and place for tit and tat, and I do not think now is the time for it. Expanding the Court will only give Republicans another bullet to use against us in the future. Republicans are not going away anytime soon, and they will be back in power whether we like it or not, and giving them additional tools to swing the pendulum hard their way is not a good idea in my opinion.
And we should be no longer afraid of this. Republicans can figure out any single bullshit anywhere to justify themselves. It doesn't matter what Democrats do; they just shouldn't excite the GOP base.
2 hours ago, XRay said:If Republicans make it up, we will clamp down on it or use it in the future against them.
It doesn't work. Their hypocrisy behind SCOTUS isn't making waves for this election at all. It should be plainly obvious to all of us that the Republican Party is a force that needs eradication, not reconciliation.
-
7 hours ago, Usana said:
Vote for? No I would merely be voting against. It just so happens that I would be voting against BOTH. Because while both aren't equally bad. Both are bad. Such tactical voting is effectively a vote of no confidence.
Well, one party is significantly better than the other.
Vote of no confidence doesn't exist in our system. Throwaway votes do, sounds like you're really into those.
You realize that court packing is suggested as essentially an anti-fascist measure right? So you're saying you're fine with fascism and pro-white anti-minority rhetoric because you're merely dissatisfied.
No offense, but a lot of your paragraphs seem to be full of bloat, and you're better off saying "I'm voting third party because I think fascism is only a little worse than social safety nets" because that's literally all i got out of your post.
Also, Trump winning another term isn't a lame duck government. It's a government that will literally dismantle anything resembling progress and cause us to regress as a society. Say goodbye to Roe v Wade and anything about accessible abortions; say goodbye to federally legal marijuana, obergefell v hodges, voting rights, etc...
I think to say both sides are bad is downplaying what the Republicans are aiming to do.
-
She's asking you a very simple question. Context is that court packing makes you want to vote Republican. Her question is simply, what makes socdem as bad as fascism that you'd vote for literal fascists due to court packing?
The entirety of the post above was meaningless. We are at a point in the history of this country where one side is literal fascists. You can turn around and bothsides and "my politics and paradigms don't fit within the two party system" and the fact that you brought up numbers figuratively... And then we used those figurative numbers to ask you what your views are... And you obfuscate with this long post saying "see? That wasn't literal" when you missed the point entirely.
You even said that you didn't follow KISS (keep it simple, stupid?) And yet you spent an entire post on minutia completely irrelevant to what's being asked of you.
-
Five bucks says he'll tell you that you're a communist in some weird way
I remember last time I had to defend the concept of equity I was told that I was a commie
-
I'm not going to speculate much on Puerto Rico but Biden's definitely come out in favor of DC Statehood (aka Senate stacking) as well. I'm not really sure what to expect from a Biden presidency overall, but the platform is pretty rock solid and the Democrats are gradually embracing it.
-
11 minutes ago, Tryhard said:
My pessimism is a result of seeing the Democrats cave to Republican demands for years, even for far longer than Trump, on things like defense spending, healthcare (Obamacare was modelled after 90's Republican healthcare plans - how many Republicans voted for it? 0.), social benefits, foreign policy (not as bad as the Republicans, but Obama was still droning everywhere and invading Libya and the like...) etc.
Different Democratic party then vs now. The landscape has shifted to the point where even West Virginia senator is considering destroying the filibuster. That's massive, because he's the furthest right of the party (given the state he lives in, it's a necessity; this is part of the issue when discussing the Democratic party, because they're an attempt at a unified front in front of a massive tent with holes).
13 minutes ago, Tryhard said:Unless he suddenly contradicts himself, he doesn't think they should pack the courts if they get the presidency and senate. It's unlikely he would consider it.
Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden hasn't commented publicly on expanding the court since Ginsburg's death. But he previously dismissed the idea, warning of reprisal if and when Republicans regain control.
"I'm not prepared to go on and try to pack the court, because we'll live to rue that day," he told Iowa Starting Line early in the primary race last year. A few months later, during a Democratic primary debate, Biden once again rejected the idea. "I would not get into court packing," Biden said. "We add three justices. Next time around, we lose control, they add three justices. We begin to lose any credibility the court has at all."
Early primary Joe Biden is a much different candidate than current Joe Biden.
Currently he dodges the question, simply because the focus should be on what is going on now and what the Democrats can/will do about it later. To avoid giving a soundbite. But Chuck Schumer has said nothing's off the table with a senate majority, and Pelosi has threatened another impeachment hearing over this. I don't see where their heads of parties are attempting to cave.
You don't want soundbites to encourage the other side to vote.
16 minutes ago, Tryhard said:I would think that such a thing would need to be unanimous, no? You can't have democrats caving if you want to do this.
From leadership, the only one I've seen gung-ho about doing this is Schumer... and he has lied about other things before.
In no situation can I imagine them doing it, I can see alternatives for them trying to play hardball, but not this. But if we are going to not predict things like this I wish I would stop seeing how Biden is going to beat Trump in a landslide from folks. I see that 538 called Hillary for 28 to 71 in terms of chances in 2016 - and 538 were probably the closest, realistically. They now have Biden at 22 to 77. Not exactly that much different despite the fact in any sane world Trump would have no chance in hell.
Court packing would have to be unanimous or SCOTUS nominations? Both are just simple majorities. The latter is solely in the Senate, the former is a simple majority in both chambers of Congress.
I'm not sure where you're hearing about Biden beating Trump in a landslide. I'm hearing significant amounts of pessimism wherever I go, followed by a "but I'll go through hell to vote for Biden right now." The polls are the polls, and they're weighted heavier for non college-educated whites among other things (non-educated whites weren't picked up on polls in 2016 as effectively as they should've been; polls were on point in 2018), so who knows? Currently 538 says 77 to 22; Biden's much more electable than Clinton, and 22% is not a 0% chance.
Considering Trump lost the popular vote by 3 million and only won by a 5-digit total number of votes among three states in 2016, it's reasonable to say that he did win, but in a very very close election where maybe lower voter turnout among certain counties may have been a cause. It's easy to say the 28% happened with hindsight, but in context it was never realistic to say a Clinton landslide.
I think if Biden wins, it should be by a landslide and it could be by a good amount, but there's so many forces at work to suppress the vote that no matter what happens the result wont be accurate. I have it in my head that Biden will somehow win a close election, then the election will get investigated only to learn that a shitload of Biden ballots were tossed out in the mail and that the election wasn't even close.
I firmly believe that in ideal circumstances wrt voting and the USPS and Trump voters not threatening people at the polls, it is a guaranteed landslide lol but sadly America is fucked up.
-
1 hour ago, Tryhard said:
Okay: the current Democratic party led by Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi do not have the spine to go ahead with court packing. See: the numerous times that the Democrats have immediately caved to the Republicans, including multiple government shutdowns. Pelosi backed off the idea of court-packing when asked about it.
Isn't the government shutdown a result of not caving? lol
QuoteBiden has dismissed the idea of doing such in any circumstance previously because of fear of Republican reprisal, as well.
Without radical change, it's not happening.
Well yeah, no shit. Senate's not guaranteed this year, nor is the presidency.
Considering the Democrats have shifted their tune on the filibuster within the last few months, I wouldn't be so sure. This isn't the 2009-2010 era party.
If your argument is simply "the democrats don't have balls," they're a minority party in the senate. There's a few that cave and they suck, the party as a whole has said "nothing's off the table if there's a confirmation." Whatever you want that to mean, I have no idea, but we don't really live in a time where we can predict things with the confidence you have.
-
1 hour ago, Tryhard said:
Anyone suggesting packing the courts is unaware about how weak and without conviction the Democrats actually are.
Anyone who can generalize the Democratic party's viewpoints is unaware of how the Democratic Party actually works.
Court packing and killing the filibuster work hand-in-hand. Republicans can easily reverse everything, but then the next D in power can reverse that. It's pretty much a scotch tape solution to grand structural problems within our country's framework.
-
48 minutes ago, Excellen Browning said:
Collins and Murkowski have said one thing and done another before. The Kavanaugh confirmation and Trump impeachment come to mind.
I'm not out beat down on people's hopes here, but things look really bleak.
I'm seeing vague threats of court packing and Pelosi threatening impeachment to delay everything.
-
10 hours ago, Etrurian emperor said:
Kanye trying to split the vote for his buddy
I'm not convinced Kanye will do anything to Biden's support.
The only thing the Dems have is court packing if they win the Senate in 2020 or 2022.
-
-
-
I would say that elements of the Trump administration resemble Hitler if he were like a higher up bureaucrat. Trump isn't any better because he lets it go unchecked, though.
It is a distinction without a difference, but I'm not going to pretend Trump was as ideological as Hitler.
-
My bad for the aggressiveness. The football fan in me really prefers accurate measurements. I yelled at a Ravens fan today for saying "we're gonna blow out the Texans." It's week 1, and we haven't even had a preseason. I don't care for jumping the gun on judgment.
But when Freddie Kitchens had a tendency to trash game plans and call plays they never practiced... all it tells me is that last year was a complete waste for Baker's career. Article: https://bleacherreport.com/articles/2865908-report-freddie-kitchens-browns-oc-todd-monken-have-disconnect
-
53 minutes ago, Яei Яei said:
Daily reminder that Baker Mayfield has a team while Colin Kaepernick hasn't.
Dude is a bum. Of course, the Browns are also a horrible, horrible team with one very good player in OBJ, but your QB is obviously going to be in the spotlight.
this could not be more of a garbage take
first off, Colin Kaepernick hasn't even been healthy since 2016, if he were signed onto a team then whatever NFL team signs him would be harassed for virtue signalling after they cut him. Kaepernick was a 1-2 read running qb who had no touch and as he aged his game broke down. That's problem #1 with your take. Kaepernick's peak passing was nowhere near as good as Mayfield's. Potentially is 100% there with Mayfield.
Now, Baker Mayfield's rookie year passing... broke the rookie TD record and made the Browns respectable. he wasn't even bad against us until the second half when it was all out of hand, and this is his fourth head coach in three years. With the coaching highlights of fucking Freddie Kitchens, Hue Jackson (you know? the guy who was 1-31 going into Mayfield's rookie year????), and Gregg Williams, as well as no preseason with Stefanski... problem #2 with your take.
Browns are not horrible. They have stellar DL and safeties (their run defense was very good against us, if you watched the game, and we have the best run game in the league). OBJ is a fucking bum, not Baker; this dude had 10 targets, 3 catches for 22 yards, and he dropped like 2 balls straight into his hands. And 2 of his targets he was held down pretty hard. But OBJ's more or less given up. Problem #3.
Problem #4 -- that offensive skill group is stacked, but that OL is garbage. Jarvis Landry, David Njoku, Austin Hooper, Joel Bitonio, Kareem Hunt, and Nick Chubb off the top of my head -- that's really good.
And finally, that game was close until their kicker left 4 points on the field, the Browns went for an obvious ass fake punt deep in their territory, and OBJ had one of the worst drops I have ever seen. Problem #5.
You want me to keep going? I fucking hate the Browns, but this is just an objectively horrible hot take. They were pretty unfortunate to be in the position they were in, and they made one dumb mistake that gave us enough time to score late in the 2nd to put the game completely away. They were moving on us very well for 2 entire quarters before we ended up taking a 24-6 lead (and that game would've been 17-13 at half if their kicker were worth a shit). It pretty much sounds like you didn't watch the game, nor did you follow the NFL in any of the past 3 years.
Also, Freddie Kitchens is legit one of the most incompetent head coaches I've seen in a long ass time and their talent basically brute forced them into 5 wins last year or whatever it was. Any semblance of decent coaching and they're an 8-8 or 9-7 team two years removed from 0-16.
EDIT: and seriously, if you can only name OBJ as their best player (LMFAO btw) then you like... don't know anything about that team. Myles Garrett is definitely their best player, and if not Myles Garrett then it's Denzel Ward. The Browns have an incredibly good DL, top 5-10 in the league, with some very strong cornerback play.
-
hello browns
fuck you
General US Politics
in Serious Discussion
Posted · Edited by Lord Raven
I don't think the politician's full will is M4A. Public Option is progressive and will get us by until actual infrastructure reform can bring fruit. It is essentially what people are asking for. I sincerely think a UHC system is what people are asking for, and it's framed as M4A.
You're right and we do need to clamor for this. I just don't think that's a heavy priority compared to other policies affecting american citizen-adjacents that will actually destroy millions of lives. It is fucked up because it needs to be addressed so as an administration as cruel (but not as dumbshitted) as this one can't take advantage of it.
I personally currently don't think that's a heavy priority to bring up (because we both know that this administration's views towards DACA are fucking horrific and have been tried in SCOTUS -- this supreme court nominee is probably the scariest time in their lives), but that is also a very tenable position. It needs to be marketed properly though, which blows because you can lose a lot of immigrants if the media ends up losing their minds over it.
This probably means he'll starve the beast since he won't expand it. Fracking is well on its way out in a free market anyway. If they rebuild the EPA and perform the meaning climate change reforms in their platform, fracking will just go away and ideally there will be some degree of Green New Deal implemented to replace it. I do think it will go hand in hand with a climate bill, without actually targeting voters (directly, anyway).
Hate to make a comparison, but Abraham Lincoln was against the expansion of slavery in 1860, which is part of the reason why the south seceded. I don't believe he went full on abolitionist in his campaign. But even without the Civil War, slavery was well on its way out and replaced by many forms of automation, so I mean, I'm not saying climate change is comparable to slavery in any way shape or form, but it's definitely a way to kill things without directly losing voters who want to keep their jobs. There still are blue collar unionists on the edge (between voting and staying home) who really aren't affected by a whole lot but kinda seem conservative.
Also he wants to win Pennsylvania. I'm not sure if you're following 538's election forecast, but Pennsylvania is likely going to decide the election if Florida goes Republican... and it's hard leaning Biden right now, but their government's a piece of shit when it comes to voter suppression.
Although trust me, for an old guy, he's changing and it's remarkable. I think the Democrats need to honestly just fuckin drop gun control as a rallying point (and just keep universal background checks in the background of their platform and the things they do but not much more) and it'll be fine and continue to trend leftwards. I don't think we'll ever go towards socialism, I think socdem/capitalism with good social safety nets is pretty much the point they're trending to but we still need to drag whole swaths of the country there in both rhetoric and idea. And just shut racists the fuck up, jesus christ.