SUPERTHREAD: 2020 United States Elections

[The Romulan Republic]

In “This is really not surprising at all” news, the Credible Allegation of Sexual Assault Against Biden (TM) apparently has come from someone whose work as an expert witness may be invalidated due to...

So you find it "not surprising"... meaning you admit that you dismissed the allegation and assumed "the woman is lying" from the get-go?

So much for believing women, I guess.

So, she has changed her story repeatedly. Her corroborating witnesses have changed their stories to match hers. One of the witnesses said outright that they did not remember being told a former US Senator and Vice President sexually assaulted their friend until the friend reminded them of it. Multiple people have come forward with tales of her being a career grifter with constant money problems. Her firing from the Biden office coincides with her being charged for check fraud. She has written bizarre love letters to Vladimir Putin and haphazardly attempted to delete them to avoid scrutiny.

And, finally, she appears to have possibly lied not only on the stand about her credentials, but defrauded a law school by convincing them to admit her without a degree.

None of those things separately or even taken together necessarily disprove that her claim is true, but there has to be a point at which a spade is called a spade and an unfalsifiable claim made by someone with such low credibility is not taken seriously. Certainly I think it’s unfair to continue claiming that Biden is inarguably a rapist given the current absence of even slightly similar claims.

My problem with Reade all along was that she came through outlets that lack credibility. Credible outlets reported that her claims were unable to be vetted appropriately for over a year. And now it turns out that she is not one with a history of honesty, apparently up to and including outright fraud and perjury. So...

I will acknowledge that Biden's case looks much stronger than it did a few weeks ago, and that Reade has, at least, not presented her case very effectively.

At the same time, there is no way to definitively prove that she is lying about being raped either, and as you noted, contradictions in a story do not prove that the basic allegation if false (human memory, especially about traumatic events that happened years ago, being imperfect to put it mildly), nor does lying about something else prove that one is lying about being raped. Which is why these attacks should not be used.

Attacks on Reade's credibility in general do not end well. It is impossible to prove that she is lying any more than that she is telling the truth, based on available evidence. All attacking her character does is evoke and give new life to a long and ugly history of character assassination against women who allege sexual abuse, make hypocrites of us and give the Republicans Whataboutism to justify doing the same.

It is also hypocritical and sexist to accuse her of lying without proof (and of committing a crime, I believe, since it would mean she filed a false police report) while demanding that Biden be given the presumption of innocence. It says that her right to presumption of innocence is less than his.

This is why I have tried to carefully avoid any defense of Biden which involves attacking Reade.

On a related note, I am deeply disgusted by the sadly predictable way that this case is already being used by some (not Fire Nexus, as far as I am aware) to launch a broader attack on the credibility of women who allege sexual abuse, and particularly by the multiple instances I've encountered of people trying to use this as a springboard to relitigate the Al Franken case, and argue that he is another example of a Democrat being framed by a false accusation.

So let's get one thing clear:

This case is not the Al Franken case, or any other case. Even if Reade were somehow proven beyond all doubt to have lied about being raped, it would not prove that any other woman also lied. It would not mean that other women should not be believed. In the Franken case, for example, he had multiple accusers, confessed, and was literally photographed groping a sleeping woman. There was nothing ambiguous about that case, and it did not hinge on unproveable testimony by one witness. The repudiation of Franken from within the Democratic Party was one of its finest hours. But sadly it is one that many Democrats seem to regret, and wish to undo for partisan reasons. The message I'm getting here is that for many Democrats, "believe women" actually means "Say you believe women, unless the accused is on our team". Which means that on this issue at least, they really are no different than the Republicans.

Automatically defending anything if someone on "our team" does it while believing anything if it makes the other side look bad, creating an alternate reality to defend our side, and attacking anyone who speaks inconvenient truths as an enemy is how the Republican Party became nothing but an extension of the Trump crime family. God help us if the Democrats go the same route.

[The Romulan Republic]

Biden at least seems to be aware of the threat:

https://theguardian.com/us-news/2020/ap ... y-election

Joe Biden said he is concerned Donald Trump will try to delay the November presidential election.

“Mark my words, I think he is going to try to kick back the election somehow, come up with some rationale why it can’t be held,” Biden, the presumptive Democratic nominee, said on Thursday night in remarks at an online fundraiser.

Under the law, no president has the power to postpone the presidential election. To change the date, Congress has to intervene.

Trump has not announced plans to delay the 3 November election, but it is a concern both political parties have raised. The president has repeatedly demonstrated a lack of understanding about the limits on executive power, particularly when it comes to his own self-preservation.

The Covid-19 outbreak has also increased concerns about how to conduct in-person voting safely. In response, many are pushing for an expansion of voting by mail.

Trump has used Covid-19 press briefings to make false claims about voting by mail, calling it “corrupt” and “dangerous”. Earlier this month, Trump also urged Republicans to fight efforts to expand voting by mail.

“Republicans should fight very hard when it comes to state wide mail-in voting,” Trump tweeted. “Democrats are clamoring for it. Tremendous potential for voter fraud, and for whatever reason, doesn’t work out well for Republicans.”

At the fundraiser, Biden also referenced reporting by the Washington Post which revealed Trump’s reluctance to fund the US postal service and efforts to force changes to its financial structure, which could harm voting by mail.

“Imagine threatening not to fund the post office. Now, what in God’s name is that about? Other than trying to let the word out that he’s going to do all he can to make it very hard for people to vote,” Biden said. “That’s the only way he thinks he can possibly win.”

The Covid-19 outbreak has already reshaped the 2020 campaign. The candidates are campaigning from home and at a stage in the cycle when the election tends to dominate news coverage, reporters are instead focused on Covid-19.

Biden also shared a broader concern about interference in the presidential election by Russia and two unnamed “major actors”.

“I promise you the Russians did interfere in our [2016] election and I guarantee you they are doing it again with two other major actors,” Biden said. “You can be assured between [Trump] and the Russians there is going to be an attempt to interfere.”

In response to Biden’s comments, the Trump campaign said in a statement: “Those are the incoherent, conspiracy theory ramblings of a lost candidate who is out of touch with reality. Perhaps he also missed the news that the infamous Steele Dossier, central to the Russian Collusion Hoax, was likely compiled with Russian disinformation. That’s the real Russian collusion.”

Well, its reassuring to know that at least Biden is thinking about this, and not going to be completely blindsided by such an attempt.

[bilateralrope]

Considering the mental decline from 2015/2016 debate Trump who was a huckster to current day 2020 not sure where he is Trump.. I'm not sure a 78 year old 2024 Trump would have it mentally together to be on camera anymore.

A year long vacation can do wonders for your mental health, I'm just saying. Especially when you have a multi-millionaire's amount of ways to relax.

Vacations don't cure Dementia and again once he's out of power he loses the ability to obstruct so things like his taxes and his financial dealings come instantly to light. Neither of which your going to get a nice restful time on a tropical private island.

Oh, they could. If Trump uses the last days of his presidency to run to somewhere without an extradition treaty that covers his crimes before he can be arrested.

[The Romulan Republic]

A year long vacation can do wonders for your mental health, I'm just saying. Especially when you have a multi-millionaire's amount of ways to relax.

Vacations don't cure Dementia and again once he's out of power he loses the ability to obstruct so things like his taxes and his financial dealings come instantly to light. Neither of which your going to get a nice restful time on a tropical private island.

Oh, they could. If Trump uses the last days of his presidency to run to somewhere without an extradition treaty that covers his crimes before he can be arrested.

Yeah, no. Allowing a former President to, essentially, defect to a foreign country, along with all the classified information he was privy to, would be a no-go. It would also make the US even more of a laughing stock on the world stage.

If Trump did that, the country in question would be told to turn him over. If they refused, he'd get extraordinary renditioned.

[FireNexus]

So you find it "not surprising"... meaning you admit that you dismissed the allegation and assumed "the woman is lying" from the get-go?

So much for believing women, I guess.

I find it not surprising meaning that I was initially skeptical due to the source of the reporting (who is very much silent on the matter today, though not too busy to retweet an interview about the RussiaGate Hoax) and eventually found it impossible to conclude that she was credible given the slow drip of “the story is bullshit” that has been coming out for months.

“Believe Women” never meant that anyone could make any claim about a public figure and torpedo that public figure by default. Of course, we already had this conversation two months ago, and I’m the one who turned out to be right about it.

I will acknowledge that Biden's case looks much stronger than it did a few weeks ago, and that Reade has, at least, not presented her case very effectively.

See, I think Biden’s case is only a bit stronger today. Because the manner in which Reade’s claims came to light stunk. And I’m not wrong about that. I wasn’t then.

At the same time, there is no way to definitively prove that she is lying about being raped either, and as you noted, contradictions in a story do not prove that the basic allegation if false (human memory, especially about traumatic events that happened years ago, being imperfect to put it mildly), nor does lying about something else prove that one is lying about being raped. Which is why these attacks should not be used.

Note that I was careful in my wording. I called her claims “unfalsifiable” on purpose.

I’m not saying she lied about this. I’m saying that she is a proven liar, and that her corroborators were admittedly coached into “remembering” whatever story she was telling at the time. The fact that the neighbor as much as said she got a memory implanted on audio is important.

If you eliminate the corroborators based on obvious coaching, all you have is her claims. And she’s not credible enough to testify in fucking traffic court at this point.

Attacks on Reade's credibility in general do not end well. It is impossible to prove that she is lying any more than that she is telling the truth, based on available evidence.

On the contrary, it currently possible to prove reasonably firmly that she lied about telling her neighbor in the 1990s. It’s less concrete whether she lied about telling her brother, but we have “journalists” admitting to coaching him. We know for sure she lied at some point about the circumstances under which she left the Biden office, and have some interesting information which implies every previous story is a lie and she got fired because she got charged with fraud.

All attacking her character does is evoke and give new life to a long and ugly history of character assassination against women who allege sexual abuse, make hypocrites of us and give the Republicans Whataboutism to justify doing the same.

No, pointing out that the person telling a high stakes story with corroboration that was coached by her and those covering her allegations is a liar is not a slippery slope. She is a person who lies. Her story could not be confirmed by any reputable media outlet, and those who broke it are not credible. Her corroboration was coached.

All we have is that she made a claim that cannot be falsified. Her being a liar is important to her claim.

It is also hypocritical and sexist to accuse her of lying without proof (and of committing a crime, I believe, since it would mean she filed a false police report) while demanding that Biden be given the presumption of innocence. It says that her right to presumption of innocence is less than his.

I’m accusing her of lies that are currently clear. I’m pointing out that her other claim is unfalsifiable while noting that she is a known liar.

This is why I have tried to carefully avoid any defense of Biden which involves attacking Reade.

Well, to each their own. But if a known liar makes a claim like this and nobody else comes out with a similar one...

On a related note, I am deeply disgusted by the sadly predictable way that this case is already being used by some (not Fire Nexus, as far as I am aware) to launch a broader attack on the credibility of women who allege sexual abuse, and particularly by the multiple instances I've encountered of people trying to use this as a springboard to relitigate the Al Franken case, and argue that he is another example of a Democrat being framed by a false accusation.

Meet one of the biggest reasons I was worried about how people such as yourself seized on this. This was the Russia-aligned portion of the Bernie left being willing to light me too on fire as a Hail Mary electoral strategy to force Biden out.

And you bought it hook, line, and sinker. Right down to derisively saying “so much for believe all women” above just before all but admitting that you’ve concluded the story looks like a bunch of bullshit. You still think my doubt of her, couched originally in terms which worried about exactly the sort of thing that has come to pass and now includes pointing out the true fact that she is a serial liar, is some misogynistic stupid or ra team bullshit.

So I’ll leave your moralizing about the nasty, foreseeable side effect of this thing you believed in spite of how clearly sketchy it was without comment. I more or less agree with your message but think it’s hilarious that you’re not taking at least a little responsibility for pushing this story that hurts the thing you claim to value.

[The Romulan Republic]

I find it not surprising meaning that I was initially skeptical due to the source of the reporting (who is very much silent on the matter today, though not too busy to retweet an interview about the RussiaGate Hoax) and eventually found it impossible to conclude that she was credible given the slow drip of “the story is bullshit” that has been coming out for months.

Ah, so we're back to "Tara Reade and her supporters are Russian operatives", I see, even though that claim at least has exactly fuck-all for evidence.

“Believe Women” never meant that anyone could make any claim about a public figure and torpedo that public figure by default. Of course, we already had this conversation two months ago, and I’m the one who turned out to be right about it.

It does, at the least, mean that every claim must be taken seriously and investigated thoroughly, and yet you are loudly insisting that you were right to dismiss Reade and think she was lying from the start, before any substantial investigation had occurred, and are going so far as to claim that I am responsible for discrediting other accusers by believing her.

IF you are correct about Reade, and that is still unproven and unlikely to ever definitively be proven, then it does not change the fact that that is with the benefit of hindsight, and that when this story first broke, the preponderance of evidence and basically logic said that Reade should be taken seriously. And even if she were somehow proven to have lied, one false allegation would not affect the credibility of any other, unrelated accusation (or it wouldn't in a more just world).

See, I think Biden’s case is only a bit stronger today. Because the manner in which Reade’s claims came to light stunk. And I’m not wrong about that. I wasn’t then.

Yeah, you were, and the implication of your position is that she should have been dismissed and assumed to be lying from the start, before any investigation was conducted.

You are engaging in classic rape apologist rhetoric for, as far as I can tell, no other reason than egotism and being able to say "I told you so".

Note that I was careful in my wording. I called her claims “unfalsifiable” on purpose.

I’m not saying she lied about this. I’m saying that she is a proven liar, and that her corroborators were admittedly coached into “remembering” whatever story she was telling at the time. The fact that the neighbor as much as said she got a memory implanted on audio is important.

If you eliminate the corroborators based on obvious coaching, all you have is her claims. And she’s not credible enough to testify in fucking traffic court at this point.

More than one person corroborated her story. Source that all of them were "coached"?

On the contrary, it currently possible to prove reasonably firmly that she lied about telling her neighbor in the 1990s. It’s less concrete whether she lied about telling her brother, but we have “journalists” admitting to coaching him. We know for sure she lied at some point about the circumstances under which she left the Biden office, and have some interesting information which implies every previous story is a lie and she got fired because she got charged with fraud.

None of which, even if true, proves that the accusation itself is false. And no, "she lied about some other things" does not prove or imply that she lied about being raped. Liars and criminals can be raped too.

ANo, pointing out that the person telling a high stakes story with corroboration that was coached by her and those covering her allegations is a liar is not a slippery slope. She is a person who lies. Her story could not be confirmed by any reputable media outlet, and those who broke it are not credible. Her corroboration was coached.

All we have is that she made a claim that cannot be falsified. Her being a liar is important to her claim.

It damn well is a slippery slope. How slippery? Again, Franken. Because in the last few days I've seen multiple people arguing that Reade somehow is related to Franken, and that Franken was falsely accused, even though HE GROPED A SLEEPING WOMAN ON CAMERA.

That you are arguing that Reade should have been dismissed from the start, before any investigation, that you were right to think so, and attacking the character and motives of anyone who disagrees, shows that you are quite content to slide down that slippery slope, and extend your attack on Reade to a broader attack on the credibility of sexual assault survivors.

I’m accusing her of lies that are currently clear. I’m pointing out that her other claim is unfalsifiable while noting that she is a known liar.

Your implications are obvious, but I suppose that this is technically correct.

Well, to each their own. But if a known liar makes a claim like this and nobody else comes out with a similar one...

Well of course there is still a litany of allegations of inappropriate conduct by Biden, albeit not of outright rape.

I would say that the seeming absence of other rape accusations is probably the biggest weakness in the case against Biden to me, although it could conceivably be explained by other witnesses being afraid to come forward (particularly given the backlash against Reade), being ignored (this story took a while to gain traction or much publicity), or even not wanting to jeopardize the election.

Regardless, I will maintain that those of us who believed Reade's account when this story broke were in the right to do so based upon the evidence at the time, regardless of what has happened since or may happen in the future. If we turn out to be wrong about this case, then I'll be glad not to have to vote for the lesser rapist this fall. But I will maintain that believing Reade at the start was the right choice. You have to make the best call you can with the facts at hand, and it is far more reasonable, in the absence of further evidence, to believe that a woman accusing a powerful man with a history of inappropriate conduct of rape is telling the truth, than to assume that she is lying. And to do otherwise would have been an act of great hypocrisy, and would have set a very poisonous precedent.

Meet one of the biggest reasons I was worried about how people such as yourself seized on this. This was the Russia-aligned portion of the Bernie left being willing to light me too on fire as a Hail Mary electoral strategy to force Biden out.

And here we go again. Because God knows it wouldn't be a Fire Nexus post without some petty vendetta-driven shitting on Sanders supporters. So, more "She's a Russian agent!" with zero proof whatsoever (I guess only Biden gets presumption of innocence), and also trying to tie Sanders and his supporters to Russia because of course you are.

Go on, call ME of all people on this board a Russia apologist. I fucking dare you.

And you bought it hook, line, and sinker. Right down to derisively saying “so much for believe all women” above just before all but admitting that you’ve concluded the story looks like a bunch of bullshit.

I have concluded no such thing. Don't put words in my mouth.

You still think my doubt of her, couched originally in terms which worried about exactly the sort of thing that has come to pass and now includes pointing out the true fact that she is a serial liar, is some misogynistic stupid or ra team bullshit.

You are using classic rape apologist rhetoric (inconsistencies or dishonesty in one area means the accusation should not be believed), and claiming you were right all along to do so, even before any of the contradictions in Reade's story came to light. In other words, you believe she should have been dismissed from the get-go, without investigation.

You are also making false and unproven accusations against Reade and her supporters, while arguing that Biden should be given the benefit of the doubt.

So I’ll leave your moralizing about the nasty, foreseeable side effect of this thing you believed in spite of how clearly sketchy it was without comment. I more or less agree with your message but think it’s hilarious that you’re not taking at least a little responsibility for pushing this story that hurts the thing you claim to value.

Ah, so now I have to "take responsibility" for supporting rape for believing Tara Reade, as well as for voting for Biden.

Let's be clear: There was no avoiding this trap. If I and others had joined with you in dismissing Reade from the start, without evidence or investigation, we would still have been hypocrites (even more so), the Republicans would still have got their Whataboutism, and it still would have been used to launch a broader attack on the credibility of women and survivors of sexual abuse. It just would have happened sooner.

And while we're at it, are you going to take "responsibility" for accusing people of being Russian assets with no evidence whatsoever, and the inevitable damage to the credibility of future accusations of Kremlin interference?

Yeah, I thought not.

[The Romulan Republic]

You know, as much as I hate engaging with this petty personal shit-flinging, especially about a topic this serious, I do have to point out the monstrous absurdity of the fact that I have now been told I have to "take responsibility" for supporting rape both for supporting Tara Reid AND for supporting Biden.

And given that the collective position of this board seems to be that there is no possible position I can take that does not make me personally culpable for encouraging/supporting rape, why should I give the slightest fuck what any of you have to say?

Or maybe I should just stop trying to have nuanced and intelligent positions and just become a straight party line hack who sticks with the team no matter what. At least then only one side would be calling me pro-rape. Right?

[FireNexus]

Reade’s claims were taken seriously. Half a dozen well-respected journalists who have all come out saying they couldn’t bear out the reporting tried to tell her story. She slandered many of them, in fact. My incredulity at the fact that no reputable sources could bear out the reporting (to the extent that they didn’t report on it at all for weeks after the Halper interview) is totally consistent with treating all claims seriously.

There is a process for this. Reade’s story wouldn’t see the light of day under the normal process. And the way this all shaken out is a clear vindication of The Process as necessary for Me Too to work.

I love that you could take this opportunity, one you clearly recognize, to go “You know what, I was wrong. She may not be lying, but the story is just not strong enough and those involved in publicizing it were irresponsible.” But you don’t. Instead, you decide to pretend that it is unfair to point out the Russia-skepticism of the only journalist willing to break the story that some lady makes an unvetted, unfalsiable claim about the presumptive opponent of Russia’s preferred candidate.

The real person harming MeToo in this conversation is not the one who, even now, won’t admit to being taken for a ride because the left-wing blogs he outsources his thinking to were willing to sacrifice MeToo for the chance to defeat Joe Biden. The real person is the one who sniffed this out two months ago, because he pointed out that the story was broken by a figure who seemingly exclusively reports information favorable to Russian propaganda aims.

I’m going to poke my head down again now, Rommie. Never change. I know you won’t, because you’re nothing if not consistent, but never change.

[FireNexus]

You know, as much as I hate engaging with this petty personal shit-flinging, especially about a topic this serious, I do have to point out the monstrous absurdity of the fact that I have now been told I have to "take responsibility" for supporting rape both for supporting Tara Reid AND for supporting Biden.

Come off it. I didn’t say you were supporting rape. I said that your signal-boosting of this Was harmful to the aims of MeToo, because it was obvious that this story was stinky from the jump.

And given that the collective position of this board seems to be that there is no possible position I can take that does not make me personally culpable for encouraging/supporting rape, why should I give the slightest fuck what any of you have to say?

People of varied political ideologies and backgrounds all think you’re full of shit. You are unable to reconcile this, because you would need to acknowledge that no matter whose political ideology (and thus opinion of you) is correct, it means you’re full of shit.

Or maybe I should just stop trying to have nuanced and intelligent positions

You shouldn’t stop trying. You’re a clearly an enormous failure at this endeavor, and probably always will be. But don’t stop trying.

Ok, now I’m really done.

[Highlord Laan]

So much for believing women, I guess.

I'm absolutely dead certain shes lying her ass off, because her accusation didn't happen until Biden became a credible political threat to the chimp. If what she alleges actually happened, why did she wait this long?

[The Romulan Republic]

So much for believing women, I guess.

I'm absolutely dead certain shes lying her ass off, because her accusation didn't happen until Biden became a credible political threat to the chimp. If what she alleges actually happened, why did she wait this long?

Why didn't Cosby's accusers say something sooner? Why didn't Weinstein's, or Epstein's, or Trump's? Or were they all framed too?

There are plenty of legitimate reasons why a rape survivor might wait years to come forward, as anyone with a passing familiarity with the subject who isn't a rape apologist knows. "Why didn't she say something sooner" (spoken with smug certainty that you've just "proved" that the woman is lying) is right up there with "Her story has contradictions" and "She's just doing it for money/attention" in classic rape defender rhetoric. By saying that you are "absolutely dead certain" she's lying, specifically for this reason, you are saying that every woman, ever survivor of sexual abuse, who didn't immediately come forward should also be dismissed out of hand. Which is pretty much what rape apologists have been saying for forever.

I can't prove Tara Reade is telling the truth. But its really interesting how her attackers seem to invariably fall back on very familiar rape apologist, victim-blaming tropes as "evidence" that she is lying. And it is absolutely disgusting to see those tropes be re-legitimized by self-styled Leftists and progressives and liberals, using political convenience as an excuse (and I'm pretty sure in your case you don't actually even care about the politics- you've made it clear before that you hate America and all Americans, and want nothing more than for the country's streets to run red with blood, so why do you care if Biden wins or not?)

Also, your insinuation that she made up the story to help Trump is pretty much speculation. She has not expressed support for Trump, nor has a history of supporting Republicans so far as I am aware (quite the contrary). Certainly there's no indication that she was paid or recruited by any partisan organization or person to make this claim. NONE. And I guarantee you that people have looked.

Whoever you believe, it would be nice if we could at least stick to facts. But clearly, that is too much to ask.

Honestly, the impression I get is that a lot of male "progressives" are just sick of confronting the issues of misogyny and sexual abuse of women, especially on their own team, and are latching onto the Reade story as a convenient excuse to throw MeToo under the bus and go back to the comfortable belief that women who allege rape or harassment are just out to get innocent men. Its sickening.

[loomer]

You know, we actually have a great example of the 'with us or against us' mentality emerging with the shift in rhetoric where any opponent wants the streets to run red with blood. Dissent is recast as not merely disloyalty, but treasonous disloyalty.

[loomer]

Black Americans are in an abusive relationship with the Democratic party

An offensive comment by the Democratic presidential candidate is a reminder that black people – all people – deserve better than Joe Biden

I am very tired of Joe Biden. My vote for him was already hanging by a thread before his disastrous interview with Charlamagne tha God on Friday. Interrupting the Breakfast Club host’s explanation that black people needed assurances that our communities will benefit from his presidency, Biden asserted: “If you’ve got a problem figuring out whether you’re for me or for Trump, then you ain’t black.”

Again, I am very tired of Joe Biden. Not because I am a purist, or have inflexible ideological commitments of what it will take to remove Donald Trump from office. But rather because Biden’s condescension towards black communities is intolerable.

I want to believe that Biden’s condescension started after the respected senator James Clyburn called the former vice-president an “honorary black man” at a private dinner in March. But his mistreatment of black people, verbally and politically, is decades old, and is a reflection of the Democratic party in general.

Throughout Biden’s career, he has boasted about his ability to bridge partisan divides by sacrificing the needs of black people and poor people in the name of “compromise”. For the last 30 years, Biden has repeatedly talked about freezing, cutting, or raising the age for social security and other benefits – as much as $2tn one time. His response to concerns that these cuts would hurt the poor? “We’re going to do lots of hard things … we might as well do this.”

Social security is an important program for black people, especially as we age. Among African Americans receiving social security, 35% of elderly married couples and 58% of unmarried elderly persons relied on it for 90% or more of their income. The reliance is not due to laziness or spending habits – people of color and white people make similar choices and contributions to retirement – but due to racism, lack of workplace retirement plans and barriers to accessing high-paying jobs.

“They know where my heart is,” Biden has said, of black voters.

But do we?

Senator Kamala Harris was severely scrutinized for her treatment of poor black women as a prosecutor – yet Biden’s criminal justice record makes Harris look like Thurgood Marshall. Biden authored and successfully passed the $30bn 1994 Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act. Besides putting 100,000 additional police officers in the streets, the crime bill distributed funding for new prison construction, encouraged prosecutors to charge children as adults, and even added the death penalty for 28 new areas, including drug-related offenses. Pushing for further criminalization, then senator Biden argued that George HW Bush’s crime plan did not go far enough because it did not “include enough police officers to catch the violent thugs, not enough prosecutors to convict them, not enough judges to sentence them, and not enough prison cells to put them away for a long time”. An older black generation fought through Jim Crow only for Biden to help make sure that their children and grandchildren lived through a new Jim Crow.

On the House floor, Biden compared his criminal justice approach to Richard Nixon’s law and order stance: “I would say, ‘Lock the SOBs up.’” Black people were arrested in droves following this bill, despite comparable drug use rates to white people; many are still sitting in prison today. Biden has since acknowledged flaws in the bill, but last summer he reiterated his support for the bill. The law spent $30bn but contributed to only a 1.3% decline in violent crime. He has yet to call for it to be repealed.

Today, some cities plan to expunge marijuana records and hope to pay reparations to black people formerly incarcerated for marijuana offenses. But Biden can’t seem to let go; he is inconsistent and ambivalent about marijuana legalization. He has argued it may be a gateway drug, a statement he has since dialed back. Of course, keeping marijuana illegal at the federal level does not mean that people will not use it, but rather that the extra police that he put on the street will send people of color to jail for using it. Ironically, the police were probably nowhere to be found when Biden’s friends George W Bush and Barack Obama used marijuana. If anything, the drug seems to be a gateway to the White House.

Despite attempting to cut social programs and increasing mass incarceration, Biden claims to care about black families. But he doesn’t seem to know many. During the September 2019 Democratic debate he claimed that poor families should put on a record player so their children will know more words. Recently, during an interview with the New York Times editorial board, he argued that poor black parents feel ashamed because they cannot read and skip parent-teacher conferences. He was hoping to encourage them to be better parents. But his assertion is incorrect. Black and white parents have comparable participation rates overall and attend parent-teacher conferences at the exact same rates. In fact, black parents and poor parents are the most likely to check their children’s homework and meet with guidance counselors. Biden instead relied on stereotypes that black people are not involved in their children’s lives.

Harris forced Biden to confront his work with racist elected officials to stop integration efforts using school busing. That was not his only education mistake. Biden played a significant role in creating the student debt crisis, including making student loan discharge “nearly impossible”. This is devastating to black people, who disproportionately carry school debt. While the average school debt for black women with a bachelor’s degree is about $25,000, that level of education does not provide the same level of financial security for black women as it does other groups, including white people with less education (primarily because of sexism and racism).

Again and again, Biden’s relationship with black Americans, like the Democratic National Committee’s relationship, has been patronizing at best and actively harmful at worst.

Biden’s friendship with one black person does not mean that he’s a friend to black people

Some black people will support Biden because of his association with Barack Obama – even though Obama himself doesn’t seem especially excited about Biden becoming president. The Obama days feel distant yet warm compared to Donald Trump’s current presidency. But remember: Biden cycled millions of black people in and out of jail, voted for massive numbers of poor people to go to war in Iraq, threw Anita Hill under the bus to confirm a conservative justice to the US supreme court, and, under Obama’s administration, helped to deport millions of immigrants and bombed brown countries. When Biden was vice-president, black home ownership and wealth declined significantly, even as it rose for other races. Biden’s friendship with one black person does not mean that he’s a friend to black people.

The Democratic party holds black people in an abusive relationship but says you cannot leave because the other option is more abusive. That’s why I don’t believe that a vote against Biden solely means a vote for Trump. Perhaps it is a vote against being captured by the party that makes empty promises every four years when it is election time, and delivers nothing. Perhaps it is a vote against the crime bill, drones and deportations. Perhaps it is a vote against covert and overt racism.

Biden and others will rightfully argue that Trump is worse, and I agree. But what can Biden actually deliver? Will there be fewer drones if he’s president? Maybe not. Fewer deportations? Maybe not. Less money to police departments? No. Will fewer black people die from police? Unlikely. Will black people have healthcare? Unlikely. Will black wealth increase? Unlikely. Will Palestinian lives be safer? Unlikely. Commitments to preserving our climate? Doubtful. If black people have a hard time figuring out the differences between Trump and Biden, then that is Biden’s problem, not ours.

Joe Biden refuses to reckon with the harm that he has caused to people all over the world. His best line is that he is better than the other guy, and that is exactly how abusive relationships function. Black people – all people – deserve better than Biden and the Democratic party. And yes, we are still black.

Derecka Purnell is a social movement lawyer and writer based in Washington, DC. Guardian US columnist

Source

It certainly wasn't a very politic move to declare that if you can't decide to vote for Biden you're not black, and the repercussions are beginning. It's as though a condescending attitude towards seemingly secure voting blocs with a long history of being mistreated by both sides of the political establishment isn't a good idea, not even in the face of unimaginably stupid or evil opposition.

Why does that feel familiar?

No doubt there'll be strong objections, but as far as I can see she really hit the nail on the head here:

"His best line is that he is better than the other guy, and that is exactly how abusive relationships function."

Of course, this is almost the entire political spectrum of the Anglosphere West now. Our choices have narrowed to 'outright evil' or 'evil, but maybe only, like, 85% evil on a good day', so it's not just Black voters and the Democratic party. It's all voters and the subverted democratic establishments themselves. We are given the choice between vile and vile, wretched and wretched, and third party options are systematically disenfranchised through political and media pressure or subverted by the urge to centrism (a pox on Richard di Natale's house!) until they start to drift into irrelevance.

[The Romulan Republic]

You know, we actually have a great example of the 'with us or against us' mentality emerging with the shift in rhetoric where any opponent wants the streets to run red with blood. Dissent is recast as not merely disloyalty, but treasonous disloyalty.

Nice strawman.

Highlord specifically has a long history on this board of openly pining for widespread bloodshed (although he is certainly far from the only one on this board). I can provide quotes if you like. That's what I was referring to, not some larger argument that anyone who disagrees with me or engages in dissent is treasonous, which is a position I do not hold, have never held, and will never hold. That is a libel which you are employing to falsely cast me as an authoritarian enforcer of the status quo/Not A Real Leftist. The effect, of course, is both to ad hominem me in this argument, and to poison the well against me for future ones. It is part of a pattern of systematic ad hominem, bullying, and defamation by certain posters which has gone on on this board over the last five years, with the result that it is now not only possible but encouraged for posters to tell absolutely any lie about me, put absolutely any words in my mouth, not matter how demonstrably false, and not only have them accepted and indeed applauded, but often get me in trouble if I try to argue back.

I have no doubt that this will be greeted with the usual chorus about how I'm a liar/paranoid/hysterical, because gaslighting me is also one of the favorite passtimes of certain people on this board.

[loomer]

You know, we actually have a great example of the 'with us or against us' mentality emerging with the shift in rhetoric where any opponent wants the streets to run red with blood. Dissent is recast as not merely disloyalty, but treasonous disloyalty.

Nice strawman.

Highlord specifically has a long history on this board of openly pining for widespread bloodshed (although he is certainly far from the only one on this board). I can provide quotes if you like. That's what I was referring to, not some larger argument that anyone who disagrees with me or engages in dissent is treasonous, which is a position I do not hold, have never held, and will never hold. That is a libel which you are employing to falsely cast me as an authoritarian enforcer of the status quo/Not A Real Leftist. The effect, of course, is both to ad hominem me in this argument, and to poison the well against me for future ones. It is part of a pattern of systematic ad hominem, bullying, and defamation by certain posters which has gone on on this board over the last five years, with the result that it is now not only possible but encouraged for posters to tell absolutely any lie about me, put absolutely any words in my mouth, not matter how demonstrably false, and not only have them accepted and indeed applauded, but often get me in trouble if I try to argue back.

I have no doubt that this will be greeted with the usual chorus about how I'm a liar/paranoid/hysterical, because gaslighting me is also one of the favorite passtimes of certain people on this board.

You're a weird guy. I explained why you're not actually a leftist (socdems aren't on the left) earlier, but I see it still rattled you that I called you a former centre-leftist. So let's go ahead and upgrade that to 'still a centre-leftist' until you explain why I shouldn't call you one, because buddy, you aren't a leftist, you are a 'progressive leftist' - a socdem, a liberal with a soul. This isn't an ad hominem or an attempt to 'poison the well', and it sure as hell isn't 'defamation', 'libel' or a lie. (Protip: You don't want to get into whether a comment is defamatory with lawyers, because we actually know what words like 'defamatory' and 'libelous' and 'speech' mean, unlike yourself.)

Now, as for Highlord, you can show where he's 'openly pined for widespread bloodshed' and 'want[ed] ...the country's streets to run red with blood' recently (say, from the last five years), right? And, for good measure, that he, and I quote, 'hate[s} America and all Americans'? He's expressed some repugnant views on ISIS captives and a general militant-lite mindset that I dislike, and of course I disagree with him on Reade, but I don't recall him calling for the country's streets to run red with blood (shit, I even recall him being concerned by the escalating violence?) Perhaps while you're at it you might like to show me where I've called for that, as you previously alleged? You know, the thing that shifts it out of you applying it to one person where perhaps it fits and into your new cutesy pattern of behaviour where you view dissent like 'you are not a leftist, and trump is not uniquely evil' or 'Reade is lying' as essentially a call to war against the nation? (Or did you think you could skate past and spit out your attempt to declare I'd put you in a death camp and that I want blood in the streets without me noticing?)

[The Romulan Republic]

You know, we actually have a great example of the 'with us or against us' mentality emerging with the shift in rhetoric where any opponent wants the streets to run red with blood. Dissent is recast as not merely disloyalty, but treasonous disloyalty.

Nice strawman.

Highlord specifically has a long history on this board of openly pining for widespread bloodshed (although he is certainly far from the only one on this board). I can provide quotes if you like. That's what I was referring to, not some larger argument that anyone who disagrees with me or engages in dissent is treasonous, which is a position I do not hold, have never held, and will never hold. That is a libel which you are employing to falsely cast me as an authoritarian enforcer of the status quo/Not A Real Leftist. The effect, of course, is both to ad hominem me in this argument, and to poison the well against me for future ones. It is part of a pattern of systematic ad hominem, bullying, and defamation by certain posters which has gone on on this board over the last five years, with the result that it is now not only possible but encouraged for posters to tell absolutely any lie about me, put absolutely any words in my mouth, not matter how demonstrably false, and not only have them accepted and indeed applauded, but often get me in trouble if I try to argue back.

I have no doubt that this will be greeted with the usual chorus about how I'm a liar/paranoid/hysterical, because gaslighting me is also one of the favorite passtimes of certain people on this board.

You're a weird guy. I explained why you're not actually a leftist (socdems aren't on the left) earlier, but I see it still rattled you that I called you a former centre-leftist. So let's go ahead and upgrade that to 'still a centre-leftist' until you explain why I shouldn't call you one, because buddy, you aren't a leftist, you are a 'progressive leftist' - a socdem, a liberal with a soul. This isn't an ad hominem or an attempt to 'poison the well', and it sure as hell isn't 'defamation', 'libel' or a lie. (Protip: You don't want to get into whether a comment is defamatory with lawyers, because we actually know what words like 'defamatory' and 'libelous' and 'speech' mean, unlike yourself.)

Who the fuck are you to decide who is a "real Leftist"? Who made you Party Loyalty Police? I'm left by the standards of just about anyone who isn't a communist.

Also, you flat-out admitted that you're calling me a centre-leftist because you think it "rattles" me, ie you're trolling me to try to get a rise out of me. Ignoring you now.

Now, as for Highlord, you can show where he's 'openly pined for widespread bloodshed' and 'want[ed] ...the country's streets to run red with blood' recently (say, from the last five years), right? And, for good measure, that he, and I quote, 'hate[s} America and all Americans'? He's expressed some repugnant views on ISIS captives and a general militant-lite mindset that I dislike, and of course I disagree with him on Reade, but I don't recall him calling for the country's streets to run red with blood (shit, I even recall him being concerned by the escalating violence?) Perhaps while you're at it you might like to show me where I've called for that, as you previously alleged? You know, the thing that shifts it out of you applying it to one person where perhaps it fits and into your new cutesy pattern of behaviour where you view dissent like 'you are not a leftist, and trump is not uniquely evil' or 'Reade is lying' as essentially a call to war against the nation? (Or did you think you could skate past and spit out your attempt to declare I'd put you in a death camp and that I want blood in the streets without me noticing?)

Since you asked, here's an example for Highlord:

https://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic ... 9#p4100019

I see the american flag as nothing more than a war banner of the trumpservative, the stupid, the greedy and the temperamental. I used to stand for the anthem, take pride in my country, and wanted it to prosper. Now I roll my eyes and ignore the music, scorn the nation I live in, and want it and it's people to be battered and beaten into a crying and broken heap.

As for you, you specifically cited my opposition to anti-fascist violence (which is itself an oversimplification of my position) in the context of how I was wasn't a real Leftist, and as a reason why my opinion shouldn't be taken seriously. The logical conclusion is that you feel only those who support political violence qualify as real Leftists, or indeed as people worth listening to. Enough said.

[loomer]

Nice strawman.

Highlord specifically has a long history on this board of openly pining for widespread bloodshed (although he is certainly far from the only one on this board). I can provide quotes if you like. That's what I was referring to, not some larger argument that anyone who disagrees with me or engages in dissent is treasonous, which is a position I do not hold, have never held, and will never hold. That is a libel which you are employing to falsely cast me as an authoritarian enforcer of the status quo/Not A Real Leftist. The effect, of course, is both to ad hominem me in this argument, and to poison the well against me for future ones. It is part of a pattern of systematic ad hominem, bullying, and defamation by certain posters which has gone on on this board over the last five years, with the result that it is now not only possible but encouraged for posters to tell absolutely any lie about me, put absolutely any words in my mouth, not matter how demonstrably false, and not only have them accepted and indeed applauded, but often get me in trouble if I try to argue back.

I have no doubt that this will be greeted with the usual chorus about how I'm a liar/paranoid/hysterical, because gaslighting me is also one of the favorite passtimes of certain people on this board.

You're a weird guy. I explained why you're not actually a leftist (socdems aren't on the left) earlier, but I see it still rattled you that I called you a former centre-leftist. So let's go ahead and upgrade that to 'still a centre-leftist' until you explain why I shouldn't call you one, because buddy, you aren't a leftist, you are a 'progressive leftist' - a socdem, a liberal with a soul. This isn't an ad hominem or an attempt to 'poison the well', and it sure as hell isn't 'defamation', 'libel' or a lie. (Protip: You don't want to get into whether a comment is defamatory with lawyers, because we actually know what words like 'defamatory' and 'libelous' and 'speech' mean, unlike yourself.)

Who the fuck are you to decide who is a "real Leftist"? Who made you Party Loyalty Police? I'm left by the standards of just about anyone who isn't a communist.

Buddy, it's pretty well understood that actual leftists want the dissolution of the liberal state and capitalism, not just slightly better conditions for people under the current system. This isn't anything to do with the 'party loyalty police', but a simple matter of political terminology. I don't know why you find it so offensive that I consider you, as a socdem, to not be a leftist, but rather, a liberal. As I said earlier, there's nothing wrong with holding those views, since at least your heart is in the right place.

Also, it's really incoherent that you keep accusing the anarchist of statist things like 'wanting to send you to the gulags' and 'playing the party loyalty police' since, unlike you, my political philosophy abhors these acts and practices. It kinda highlights why I don't think you're an actual leftist: you don't seem to comprehend much outside of the spectrum of American politics, where 'left' these days actually just means 'left-liberal' and at best, 'social democracy', rather than actual leftism.

Also, you flat-out admitted that you're calling me a centre-leftist because you think it "rattles" me, ie you're trolling me to try to get a rise out of me. Ignoring you now.

It's also an accurate summation of your positions, so the part where it rattles you is just a bonus, since I lost any desire to play nice with you when you accused me of being the kind of person who'd send you to the camps because I'm a far leftist. Now, as for trolling to try and get a rise out of people, that would be you, with your bizarre rant that I'd send you to the Gulag. For someone ignoring me, incidentally, you seem to have a lot of words after this point.

Now, as for Highlord, you can show where he's 'openly pined for widespread bloodshed' and 'want[ed] ...the country's streets to run red with blood' recently (say, from the last five years), right? And, for good measure, that he, and I quote, 'hate[s} America and all Americans'? He's expressed some repugnant views on ISIS captives and a general militant-lite mindset that I dislike, and of course I disagree with him on Reade, but I don't recall him calling for the country's streets to run red with blood (shit, I even recall him being concerned by the escalating violence?) Perhaps while you're at it you might like to show me where I've called for that, as you previously alleged? You know, the thing that shifts it out of you applying it to one person where perhaps it fits and into your new cutesy pattern of behaviour where you view dissent like 'you are not a leftist, and trump is not uniquely evil' or 'Reade is lying' as essentially a call to war against the nation? (Or did you think you could skate past and spit out your attempt to declare I'd put you in a death camp and that I want blood in the streets without me noticing?)

Since you asked, here's an example for Highlord:

https://bbs.stardestroyer.net/viewtopic ... 9#p4100019

I see the american flag as nothing more than a war banner of the trumpservative, the stupid, the greedy and the temperamental. I used to stand for the anthem, take pride in my country, and wanted it to prosper. Now I roll my eyes and ignore the music, scorn the nation I live in, and want it and it's people to be battered and beaten into a crying and broken heap.

Cool. I don't see him calling for blood in the streets there, but the second point is conceded - he certainly has no love for the current state of America. Of course, neither do you or I.

As for you, you specifically cited my opposition to anti-fascist violence (which is itself an oversimplification of my position) in the context of how I was wasn't a real Leftist, and as a reason why my opinion shouldn't be taken seriously. The logical conclusion is that you feel only those who support political violence qualify as real Leftists, or indeed as people worth listening to. Enough said.

No, I stated that I found it intensely funny that a former centre-leftist (and now, just a continuing centre-leftist) who actively called antifascist violence terrorism just last year was trying to state that actual leftists discussing the sordid history of American democracy are 'normalizing Trump'. The reason you aren't a 'real Leftist' is simple: you are a liberal with a social democratic political position. These are not real leftists, they are centre-leftists, because they are still aligned with the existing systems of liberalism and capitalism. Do you understand the difference between what I said and this weird reduction of it now?

Now, do you have any other examples of where I've called for blood in the streets? Shall I assume, incidentally, that you're surrendering your claim that my statement that you are not a leftist but rather a centre-leftist is defamatory and libelous?

[Knife]

Who the fuck are you to decide who is a "real Leftist"? Who made you Party Loyalty Police? I'm left by the standards of just about anyone who isn't a communist.

Literally anything written to this, you'd blow off. But the easy answer is: Who made you the arbiter of the definition as well?

Sure, I bristle when Europeans put their definition on American versions of liberal/left/right/conservative because their metrics are way different than ours. That said, those labels do have meaning. Anyway, I'd venture his label of you might stem from you're cheerleading of a progressive like Warren and Sanders until Biden took the Southern States in the Primary and you aligned quickly and solidly behind him and started cheerleading.

You have progressive ideals, but are more than malleable to realign center left ( or to be more accurate, center right with Biden). This isn't a hit on you, not an attack. Not even 'wrong'. But an observation of what you've written here. There are plenty of people, myself included, who were very happy to vote progressive like you early on, plenty of people who when Biden looks like he was wrapping things up, accepted a progressive would not be the pick and decided to more or less back Biden out of convenience but don't like Biden, don't necessarily trust him, and will pull the lever for him with a bad taste in their mouth due to the other choice. Others, I'm sure, will be all the above with the exception of not being able to bare the idea of pulling the lever for the lesser evil. Neither are technically wrong. Sure, you can take the position that those non-votes then aide Trumpolini, but that's s separate discussion. Their political position, and yours, can't really be wrong by definition. It can be immoral, or amoral but that's another discussion too. But when it comes to right/center/left and all the spectrum between, there is no 'wrong'.

Anyway, as I read it, sounds like he was just describing you on your choices as written by you.

Edit: because I can't use proper grammar this morning for some reason.

[Knife]

Though, sitting here thinking about it. TRR does make an interesting example. Plenty of politicians who have served for long periods of time do morph. Plenty of politicians consider themselves X even though they can be categorically shown by their votes/speeches/actions shown not to be. Sure, it's complicated and nuanced, but also in the grand scheme, not. Again, as far as political alignment, not 'wrong' but interesting.

Take Pelosi for example. She still see's herself as progressive, or highly liberal to leftist. Sure, if you go back 30 years to the start of her national career, you can make a decent case for that. Today, I have a hard time not laughing at that notion. To be kind, the best you could really say is she is an institutionalist who is center left/right. I guess it's the Al Bundy effect, focusing and idealizing early accomplishments. Whether that's the hide or ignore a total blank of anything since is really the problem.

[loomer]

Though, sitting here thinking about it. TRR does make an interesting example. Plenty of politicians who have served for long periods of time do morph. Plenty of politicians consider themselves X even though they can be categorically shown by their votes/speeches/actions shown not to be. Sure, it's complicated and nuanced, but also in the grand scheme, not. Again, as far as political alignment, not 'wrong' but interesting.

Take Pelosi for example. She still see's herself as progressive, or highly liberal to leftist. Sure, if you go back 30 years to the start of her national career, you can make a decent case for that. Today, I have a hard time not laughing at that notion. To be kind, the best you could really say is she is an institutionalist who is center left/right. I guess it's the Al Bundy effect, focusing and idealizing early accomplishments. Whether that's the hide or ignore a total blank of anything since is really the problem.

Part of it is also the pragmatics of party politics. It's why third way politics had such a poisonous impact (since it went all-out 'whatever it takes to win'), but that was just a manifestation of the underlying nature of democratic elections and the need to avoid certain forms of controversy to avoid real and genuine challenges to their prospects from within the party establishment as well as without.

[The Romulan Republic]

Snip loomer

You're right, I should just ignore you, but I felt I had to back up the claims I made regarding you and Highlord.

You probably don't sit down and think "I want to send people to the gulags". But that is where this sort of rhetoric, labeling people "not real (x)" or enemies because they are not extreme or violent enough, has repeatedly lead in the past. In less dire situations, its just pragmatically idiotic. I'm further left on a variety of issues than the vast majority of the population, so if my view is to be disregarded for not being sufficiently left, then you leave yourself with a very, very limited number of allies, and little hope of actually accomplishing anything much.

Also, just to be clear: I do not simply support the continuation of capitalism or the "liberal state". Among other things, I am a vocal advocate of global government and the total abolition of the nation state. Something which you know perfectly well, because we've had this conversation before.

So, since you've made it clear that you will deliberately and blatantly lie about my views in order to attack me, that you have no regard for anything I say, and that you are by your own admission deliberately baiting me to get a rise out of me, yes, I think it would be best for me to ignore you. This thread isn't about me, and continuing to argue with you only validates and encourages the tactic of turning every thread I post in into another round of "Let's all shit on TRR", rather than the original topic of the thread.

[loomer]

Snip loomer

You're right, I should just ignore you, but I felt I had to back up the claims I made regarding you and Highlord.

You probably don't sit down and think "I want to send people to the gulags". But that is where this sort of rhetoric, labeling people "not real (x)" or enemies because they are not extreme or violent enough, has repeatedly lead in the past. In less dire situations, its just pragmatically idiotic. I'm further left on a variety of issues than the vast majority of the population, so if my view is to be disregarded for not being sufficiently left, then you leave yourself with a very, very limited number of allies, and little hope of actually accomplishing anything much.

Again, fuckhead - I'm an anarchist. We're the ones who get sent to the camps, not the ones who send people, because we don't allow camps. Also, your view wasn't disregarded' - I commented that I found it deeply funny and then explained why it was mistaken. This, you may notice, is not disregarding your views for not being those of an actual leftist, but engaging with them, explaining why I think they are mistaken. You may even notice that this is the precise opposite of disregarding them because you aren't an actual leftist. You might even consider it an attempt at a dialogue between left and centre-left if you hadn't been triggered into some bizarre reactive episode at the thought that anarchists don't consider socdems like you to be part of the left.

Also, just to be clear: I do not simply support the continuation of capitalism or the "liberal state". Among other things, I am a vocal advocate of global government and the total abolition of the nation state. Something which you know perfectly well, because we've had this conversation before.

Yeah, fun fact - you can be an internationalist and globalist and still support a quintessentially liberal and soft-capitalist world order, which is... actually pretty much everything I see you post. Liberalism does not require the existence of nationstates - a one-world state construed along liberal principles of organization is perfectly possible, and even something that plenty of liberal theory has considered and suggested working towards.

You might know this if you actually spent any time studying politics, but then, that would require you to engage with unnuanced world views like Habermas.

So, since you've made it clear that you will deliberately and blatantly lie about my views in order to attack me, that you have no regard for anything I say, and that you are by your own admission deliberately baiting me to get a rise out of me, yes, I think it would be best for me to ignore you. This thread isn't about me, and continuing to argue with you only validates and encourages the tactic of turning every thread I post in into another round of "Let's all shit on TRR", rather than the original topic of the thread.

Christ, you're a whiny little prick. Nothing I've said about is a 'deliberate and blatant lie' (I'd say prove it is, but we both know the reason you're throwing in your little hat yet again is that you know you can't), and if I had no regard for anything you said, I wouldn't try and dispute it. I'd just ignore it. You are, yet again, the one who made this about you by throwing a shitfit about gulags and revolutions when I laughed at a centre-leftist trying to say actual leftists are normalizing Trump. Now kindly go back to jerking yourself off over what a good leftist you are while you vote for Biden. The actual left will be out here working solidarity causes.

[The Romulan Republic]

Who the fuck are you to decide who is a "real Leftist"? Who made you Party Loyalty Police? I'm left by the standards of just about anyone who isn't a communist.

Literally anything written to this, you'd blow off.

If you want me to listen to what you have to say, this isn't a great note to start on.

But the easy answer is: Who made you the arbiter of the definition as well?

Nobody, of course. Just because I deny loomer's authority to label me does not mean I am claiming that authority for myself.

But this is a non-answer. Its effectively "I know you are but what am I" level argument. Of course, because you already poisoned the well by predicting that I would respond negatively to anything you said, you can now use this as "proof" that you were right, and that I'm just "blowing off" anything you say, rather than rejecting a shitty argument.

However, you actually did say something interesting further down, which I would like to address:

Sure, I bristle when Europeans put their definition on American versions of liberal/left/right/conservative because their metrics are way different than ours. That said, those labels do have meaning. Anyway, I'd venture his label of you might stem from you're cheerleading of a progressive like Warren and Sanders until Biden took the Southern States in the Primary and you aligned quickly and solidly behind him and started cheerleading.

You have progressive ideals, but are more than malleable to realign center left ( or to be more accurate, center right with Biden). This isn't a hit on you, not an attack. Not even 'wrong'. But an observation of what you've written here. There are plenty of people, myself included, who were very happy to vote progressive like you early on, plenty of people who when Biden looks like he was wrapping things up, accepted a progressive would not be the pick and decided to more or less back Biden out of convenience but don't like Biden, don't necessarily trust him, and will pull the lever for him with a bad taste in their mouth due to the other choice. Others, I'm sure, will be all the above with the exception of not being able to bare the idea of pulling the lever for the lesser evil. Neither are technically wrong. Sure, you can take the position that those non-votes then aide Trumpolini, but that's s separate discussion. Their political position, and yours, can't really be wrong by definition. It can be immoral, or amoral but that's another discussion too. But when it comes to right/center/left and all the spectrum between, there is no 'wrong'.

Anyway, as I read it, sounds like he was just describing you on your choices as written by you.

Edit: because I can't use proper grammar this morning for some reason.

Actually, based on his comments above, I'm pretty sure loomer would regard Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren (certainly the latter) as Not Real Leftists too.

But that aside, the question here is, do we define who is a "true leftist" by beliefs and goals, or by tactics? My beliefs haven't changed much since February. My goals haven't changed much since February. I simply recognized that I will get more of the left-wing policies I believe in from Biden than from Trump, and that we are at a point where those are the only viable options. Refusing to vote for Biden, and increasing the likelihood of a Trump win (and yes, that is the practical result, whatever academic argument you want to make about the responsibility of non-voters) won't actually accomplish any of the left-wing goals I support- in fact it will render just about every one of them impossible to accomplish.

So, who is the true believer: the person who wilfully sabotages left-wing policy goals because they didn't get enough of what they wanted? Or the person who accepts some progress as a preferable outcome to none? Because having consistent principles is good, but refusing to ever work with anyone who isn't just right, even if it means losing everything, is another matter. And

From where I'm standing, this constant infighting on the Left, turning on each other for being too far Left or not far Left enough, is how we keep losing. And I know that I'm a part of that as well, but its hard to disengage from the fight when others around you are determined to continue it, and to make you a target of it. We need to be able to work with people who's beliefs aren't exactly your own. Even if we said "Fuck Democracy, let's have a civil war", we'd need to be able to do that, because there aren't enough True Leftists in America or most countries to win such a conflict.

It is also, of course, looking like Biden will be a significantly more Left-leaning President than many of us expected. Not a full-blown socialist, sadly, but circumstances are forcing him well left of what he originally ran on. Which brings me to your second point:

Though, sitting here thinking about it. TRR does make an interesting example. Plenty of politicians who have served for long periods of time do morph. Plenty of politicians consider themselves X even though they can be categorically shown by their votes/speeches/actions shown not to be.

I think that you are somewhat confusing two different things here: people who say one thing while meaning something else, and people who have genuinely changed their positions over time.

There is a difference between a politician who routinely contradicts themselves based on what's convenient at the moment, and one who has honestly had a change of heart, or been forced to change their position because the world has changed and what worked once no longer does. And yet we have a culture which treats a refusal to change as a virtue, and attacks anyone who does change as dishonest, as though narrow-minded inflexibility is a virtue in a leader. Of course, that's not how it ultimately played out. What happened instead was that it became the conventional "wisdom" that all politicians were dishonest and corrupt, so why not vote for the most dishonest of them all? Because Trump may be a liar, but they're all liars, and at least he's OPEN about being a liar. And he may be an asshole, but he's an unapologetic asshole. So now we live in this twisted world where learning from your mistakes and having a sincere change of heart is a sign of dishonesty and lack of character, but being an unapologetic narcissist and liar is a twisted form of credibility, 'cause at least you're being honest about being dishonest.

Sticking with a position when it no longer makes sense is NOT a virtue. Its George W Bush saying we need to "stay the course" in Iraq.

Sure, it's complicated and nuanced, but also in the grand scheme, not. Again, as far as political alignment, not 'wrong' but interesting.

Take Pelosi for example. She still see's herself as progressive, or highly liberal to leftist. Sure, if you go back 30 years to the start of her national career, you can make a decent case for that. Today, I have a hard time not laughing at that notion. To be kind, the best you could really say is she is an institutionalist who is center left/right. I guess it's the Al Bundy effect, focusing and idealizing early accomplishments. Whether that's the hide or ignore a total blank of anything since is really the problem.

I'm not sure sure does see herself as Leftist, and her reputation seems to generally be as a Centrist figure within the party.

That aside, though, its certainly true that someone could start their career as a Leftist but be left behind by the course of events. This kind of echoes what I said above- that refusing to adapt and change your position isn't always a virtue. Even Bernie Sanders fell prey to this to some extent- while his views were radically Left-wing a few years ago, he lagged behind some other candidates on certain issues relating to race, gender, and social justice, and his silence on UBI until very recently was notable.

Biden is a really interesting example here, actually. Biden started out as someone who was probably fairly Centrist for his day, but who's early views on race, for example, are now frighteningly regressive. He has generally shifted over the course of his career to stay near the center of the party, but even a year ago was running on, essentially, restoring the Obama-ear status quo, at a time when the party as a whole had moved significantly left of that. However, he has in the last couple months made a marked and fairly consistent shift left on a number of issues. Some of that can be put down to political pragmatism, ie needing to win over Sanders supporters, but some of it is also clearly due to the coronavirus crisis and resulting recession, and the realization it has forced that a) the status quo isn't good enough, and b) things are possible now politically that weren't when Obama was President.

So, should we condemn Biden for being late to the party, instead of being a True Believer from the beginning? Or should we welcome the fact that more people are now starting to see things our way, and welcome whatever support we can get (presuming, of course, that Biden's shift lasts, and he doesn't pivot back to the Center shortly)?

[The Romulan Republic]

Yeah, I'm going to vote for Biden. And in doing so, I will be doing far more to get actual left-wing policy goals turned into actual law than all the pretentious, self-righteous accelerationists who are decrying me as the enemy while they proudly pat themselves on the back for helping a fascist arch-capitalist mob boss win a second term.

Or as they call it, "being a real Leftist".

[loomer]

Bernie can't be described as radically left wing in any meaningful sense, certainly not at any point over the last 30 years. He's a moderately further left socdem/light democratic socialist depending on exactly what point we're talking about, neither of which are radical left wing positions and only one of which is an actual left position rather than centre-left. Warren is a socdem. Also, if you're going to ignore me, don't invoke me.

Yeah, I'm going to vote for Biden. And in doing so, I will be doing far more to get actual left-wing policy goals turned into actual law than all the pretentious, self-righteous accelerationists who are decrying me as the enemy while they proudly pat themselves on the back for helping a fascist arch-capitalist mob boss win a second term.

Or as they call it, "being a real Leftist".

For a dude ignoring me, this sure looks like an attempt at a shot. But sure - Gandalf and I are aiding in the re-election of Trump by not buying into the liberal establishment's line that he's an exceptional evil. Keep on jerkin'.