SUPERTHREAD: 2020 United States Elections

[The Romulan Republic]

Biden reportedly considering Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer for VP:

https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/4 ... mer-for-vp

Former Vice President Joe Biden confirmed this week that Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D) is one of the women he's considering as a potential running mate in his White House bid.

Biden, who has already vowed to tap a woman as his vice presidential pick, said Tuesday night he’s been considering Whitmer for the role for months, but that he is eyeing as many as 10 potential candidates.

“She made the list in my mind two months ago. There’s probably going to be a list, I’m in the process of — Brian, we’ll have it by mid-April, putting together an organization that will run the background checks … by the second or third week in April,” Biden told MSNBC host Brian Williams.

“I’ve thought about some of the women who I believe are ready to be president and I think I can work with and would be willing to work with me. It’s going to be somewhere between six and 10 of them," Biden continued.

Whitmer, a rising Democratic star who flipped Michigan’s governorship in 2018, has long been seen as a possible running mate for Biden. Whitmer runs a crucial swing state that Democrats will almost certainly have to win back in November to defeat President Trump, and she handed Biden a high-profile endorsement before the Wolverine State’s primary last month, which the former vice president ultimately won by double digits.

Whitmer has also garnered national headlines and Democratic plaudits for her criticism of Trump’s response to the coronavirus pandemic, comments that drew swift rebukes from the White House.

“Facing a dangerous abdication of leadership from Donald Trump during this pandemic, Governor Gretchen Whitmer has been a tenacious fighter for Michigan families,” Biden said in a statement in Whitmer’s defense that fueled further speculation over her prospects for a spot on a national ticket. “Donald Trump could learn a thing or two from Governor Whitmer — speed matters, details matter, and people matter.”

Besides Whitmer, Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Kamala Harris (D-Calif.) and Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.), Rep. Val Demings (D-Fla.) and former minority leader of the Georgia state House Stacey Abrams, among others, have been floated as possible running mates for Biden.

I don't know a great deal about Whitmer. She's younger (only 48) and considered a rising star in the party, she's Midwestern, and a woman, all of which are strengths in a VP pick, especially for Biden. She's not terribly progressive, but so far as I know she isn't a particular target of progressive anger in the way that, say, Kamala Harris would be. She's also gained some attention due to the way Trump screwed over Michigan during the pandemic, much like Cuomo.

She's also a survivor of sexual assault, which on the one hand could be seen as outreach to sexual assault survivors by Biden and a challenge to Trump on the issue, but on the other hand is going to be very awkward given Biden's own history.

I'd be a bit disappointed to see an all-white ticket again, though I suspect Biden's thinking is that he's strong enough with voters of colour and that shoring up support in the Midwest is more important.

Policy-wise, Wikipedia gives us this:

Political positions
Education
Whitmer would like to phase in full-day Universal Pre-K for 4-year-olds in Michigan. She also wants to reduce the cost of childcare for struggling families. She would eliminate Michigan's current 3rd grade "read or flunk" policy, which she has said penalizes students who have been failed by the education system, and would instead work to improve their reading skills. She proposes that all high school students be offered two years of debt-free higher education, either college or post-secondary training for skilled trades.[36]

Not tuition free college, but two years debt free would help a lot of people. I'd say she's okay on education.

Health care
Whitmer has said she would fight Republican efforts to take away protections for patients with preexisting conditions. In the State Senate, Whitmer successfully worked to expand Medicaid coverage in the state. She has spoken against single-payer healthcare as unrealistic. She has stated she would work to lower the cost of prescription drugs, and would get rid of Shuette's drug immunity law, which she believes protects drug companies from legal trouble if their drugs harm or kill people.[37]

Yeah, it looks like Biden isn't shifting on Medicare for All. The things she supports are all good, just not enough.

It is really frustrating to see the Democratic Center dragging their heels on this. This issue would be a huge winner for them, if they only got behind it. National polling favours Medicare for All, and Biden backing it would likely be the one sure-fire way to get most Bernie voters immediately behind him.

Taxation
In March 2019 Whitmer proposed increasing the gasoline tax 45 cents per gallon to fund road repairs. If it is enacted Michigan will have the highest fuel tax in the United States.

Well, given how unpopular gas taxes tend to be (John Oliver did a whole bit on it), at least she's willing to take unpopular positions when necessary. Raising taxes on fossil fuels to fund infrastructure repairs is definitely something I can get behind.

All in all, she seems like a generic Centrist Dem, perhaps a bit left of Center on a couple of issues, but with nothing particularly obnoxious about her that immediately stands out.

[J]

I really can't overstate how important this is:

If Trump wins, we don't get another chance. This isn't politics as usual. If nothing else, the last four years should have taught us that. This isn't about our internal party squabbles, or "not wanting to vote for the lesser of two evils", or sending the DNC a message, or any of that. This is about whether the most powerful nation on Earth, during the triple global crises of COVID, a new Depression, and climate change, is a fascistic dictatorship.

If Biden wins, we get to try again. He'll be gone in four or eight years (possibly sooner, given his age and seeming senility). That's what I'll be voting for. The right to try again in four years.

Hopefully? Perhaps you should look up the the Omnibus Counterterrorism act of 1995 which thankfully died on the floor, but was resurrected 16 years later as the Patriot Act. I don't think I need to tell you who wrote the proposed bill in 1995 and voted for it again in 2001. I would not be so sure about your freedoms considering Biden's history.

[The Romulan Republic]

Biden's no stalwart champion of civil liberties, but he is above all an embodiment of political norms. He's an institutionalist. This is, of course, precisely what "anti-establishment" folks hate about him- but I cannot honestly see Biden pushing to make himself a dictator the way Trump has, and he's shown no aspirations in that direction that I'm aware of. He's also not going to try to systematically suppress minority votes, if only out of self-interest as a Democrat.

This is what's so poisonous about these false equivalencies: they miss the nuances, and those nuances DO matter. "Biden supported the Patriot Act, therefore he may want to be dictator like Trump." Sounds logical, right? Except, no, it doesn't mean that. Biden is a deeply problematic candidate in a lot of ways, but his failings are not, by and large, the same as Trump's. And Biden is, at least, less of a risk in that he has not demonstrated a desire to run the country as an autocrat.

I repeat: Under Biden, we get to try again in four years. Under Trump, we don't.

Anyway, on to Biden's cabinet options:

https://mic.com/p/joe-bidens-reported-c ... s-22609484

With the former vice president a strong frontrunner heading into Tuesday’s Democratic primary elections, reports are emerging about Joe Biden’s potential Cabinet choices if he’s elected. On Monday, Axios reported that sources in Biden’s camp have been discussing a range of options for top jobs like vice president, treasury secretary, and secretary of state. And as with many of Biden’s positions, the names mentioned seem almost perfectly primed to infuriate progressives, especially when it comes to the financial positions in the Cabinet.

For treasury secretary, per Axios, Biden is considering none other than Jamie Dimon, chairman and CEO of JPMorgan Chase, who is about as far right as someone can get while still ostensibly portraying themselves as a Democrat. “My heart is Democratic but my brain is kind of Republican,” said Dimon himself last year. As one of the top bankers in the country, Dimon was intimately involved in the circumstances of the 2008 mortgage crisis, ultimately lending $80 billion to Lehman Brothers after its collapse to help it sell off assets. JPMorgan Chase also received billions of dollars in bailout funds from the Troubled Asset Relief Program.

In short, Dimon represents everything that progressive Sens. Bernie Sanders (Vt.) and Elizabeth Warren (Mass.) based their entire presidential campaigns on opposing: the elevation of cutthroat capital managers to the highest positions in American society.

Another name reportedly being considered to lead the Treasury Department is Anne Finucane, vice chairman of Bank of America. A ProPublica report from 2008 explores Biden’s deep ties to BofA, noting that over the years, “Biden has been particularly cozy with MBNA, a financial services company from Delaware, and now a subsidiary of Bank of America.” Biden’s son Hunter, who’s been embroiled in controversy in Ukraine, was recruited by MBNA out of law school and worked for the company as a lobbyist. Mother Jones reported last year that the elder Biden spoke at a MBNA corporate retreat in 1997.

Biden also helped pass a bill called the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005, which was favored by banks because, according to ProPublica, it made bankruptcy protections harder for consumers to actually obtain. As a senator from Delaware, where many financial companies are based because of its lax tax laws, Biden’s relationships with banking and credit industries run deep. Mother Jones reports that Biden helped defeat a proposal by reformers that would have made companies file for bankruptcy in states where they were actually based — an initiative that would have taken money away from Delaware’s legal industry given it makes massive profits off of litigating bankruptcies in the state. Some called the reform “the Delaware killer.”

A New York Times report additionally notes that Biden was one of a group of five Democrats in 2005 who sided with Republicans to defeat proposals, supported by then-Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, that would have added warnings to consumers about the dangers of making minimum credit payments and strengthening bankruptcy protections.

Notably, the Axios report also says that Biden is considering Warren herself for the treasury secretary position, which “could help unite the party.” Warren and Dimon represent essentially opposite sides of the Democratic Party when it comes to their approach to capital and banks. Warren, who came up with the idea for the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, has made attacking corruption in corporate finance a center of her career. In 2002, in a report on attempts to reform the financial industry, Warren attacked Biden specifically for his “energetic work on behalf of the credit card companies,” Mother Jones notes.

If Biden wins the presidency, he will have to decide whether he wants to take Warren’s critiques seriously, or continue the cozy relationships with finance that have defined much of his political career.

Joe might make those corporatist picks and still win, not on the basis of his own strengths but on the basis of Trump taking the fall for COVID and the Recession/Depression. But these picks would be basically an arrogant dismissal of his own party's base, lose him any chance at party unity, and probably set him up for a primary challenge in four years.

Its interesting that he's considering/was considering Warren as well, though. I think selecting her for that post would send a very positive message.

[Ziggy Stardust]

Saying "Biden can't win" as a justification for helping to make sure he doesn't seems rather disingenuous.

Luckily, that wasn't my justification? In retrospect I do realize that my post was phrased a little ambiguously there at the beginning, so apologies for that, but I would think that the fact that I gave a pretty thorough justification for why I feel the way I do that isn't "Biden can't win" would be a hint that this isn't my motivation.

Vote for Biden, because you're not really voting for him. You're voting for progressives to get another chance in four/eight years.

I'm snipping the rest of what you said, because to be honest I'm not sure you read my post at all. I'm not even saying you are wrong to disagree with me, as I said in my post pretty clearly, despite your attempts to ignore it, I see both sides of the argument and haven't made a firm decision yet regardless. But at least do me the courtesy of trying to understand where I am coming from instead of just ignoring it and repeating how bad Trump is. I KNOW how bad Trump is, and to be honest I find the way you are trying to guilt trip me without making any honest effort to understand my post to be pretty despicable (and hypocritical, but I don't have the energy to have that discussion with you right now).

[The Romulan Republic]

Saying "Biden can't win" as a justification for helping to make sure he doesn't seems rather disingenuous.

Luckily, that wasn't my justification? In retrospect I do realize that my post was phrased a little ambiguously there at the beginning, so apologies for that, but I would think that the fact that I gave a pretty thorough justification for why I feel the way I do that isn't "Biden can't win" would be a hint that this isn't my motivation.

It was one of the things you said. I never claimed it was your entire post.

Vote for Biden, because you're not really voting for him. You're voting for progressives to get another chance in four/eight years.

I'm snipping the rest of what you said, because to be honest I'm not sure you read my post at all. I'm not even saying you are wrong to disagree with me, as I said in my post pretty clearly, despite your attempts to ignore it, I see both sides of the argument and haven't made a firm decision yet regardless. But at least do me the courtesy of trying to understand where I am coming from instead of just ignoring it and repeating how bad Trump is. I KNOW how bad Trump is, and to be honest I find the way you are trying to guilt trip me without making any honest effort to understand my post to be pretty despicable (and hypocritical, but I don't have the energy to have that discussion with you right now).
[/quote]

I did read your post. I think I understand what you're saying. I just think that however you want to justify it to yourself or others, however justified you feel you are, the result is the same: you're contemplating knowingly, willingly helping a fascist win. That shit was bankrupt four years ago. Now, after we've seen four years of what Trump is? I don't even have words for it.

You don't get to say that, and then take the moral high ground with anybody.

Also, what hypocrisy? I have always been very clear that I believe the priority has to be the defeat of Trump, and I've never really wavered from that.

[Ralin]

By "null voting", do you mean voting for Trump?

I think it’s pretty self-explanatory.

Because if so, guess what? Nobody cares WHY collaborators worked with the Nazis, what personal justifications they had. Only that they were collaborators. If you're given a choice between two sexual predators, and you pick the one who's also a fascist climate denying mob boss, well, that makes your values pretty damn clear, and you'll be judged accordingly.

I love how you are convinced that ~history~ or whatever will validate your judgment despite your inability to convince a wide range of liberal and left-leaning people of it now. But hey, while we’re on the subject

It sucks, but that's the truth, under the current system. And if you're going to do that, then you need to own your support for everything Trump has done, and will do.

If you’re going push this “Vote blue, no matter who” shit you need to own the fact that you are in fact totally okay with electing a rapist so long as the rapist is left of most of the Republican party and will maybe rubber stamp stuff from the right team. Maybe.

[Ralin]

And that's all assuming it's an actual choice between Trump or Biden winning. Because let's be real. Biden is probably not going to win.

[The Romulan Republic]

By "null voting", do you mean voting for Trump?

I think it’s pretty self-explanatory.

Because if so, guess what? Nobody cares WHY collaborators worked with the Nazis, what personal justifications they had. Only that they were collaborators. If you're given a choice between two sexual predators, and you pick the one who's also a fascist climate denying mob boss, well, that makes your values pretty damn clear, and you'll be judged accordingly.

I love how you are convinced that ~history~ or whatever will validate your judgment despite your inability to convince a wide range of liberal and left-leaning people of it now. But hey, while we’re on the subject

It sucks, but that's the truth, under the current system. And if you're going to do that, then you need to own your support for everything Trump has done, and will do.

If you’re going push this “Vote blue, no matter who” shit you need to own the fact that you are in fact totally okay with electing a rapist so long as the rapist is left of most of the Republican party and will maybe rubber stamp stuff from the right team. Maybe.

So that's your argument? "TRR supports rape?" I guess that'll enter this board's canon alongside other such gems as "TRR is a fascist", "TRR hates Russians", "TRR hates Chinese people", "TRR supports genocide", and have as much truth as all of them. Fuck you.

I am not "okay" with electing a rapist. That is a vicious, disgusting, despicable libel, intended fully and consciously to associate me and my views with support for sexual assault. I made my views on Biden and his character very clear, as I made my views on who I preferred for the nomination.

But given a choice between a rapist, and a rapist who's also a Nazi and a climate denier... yeah, that's a pretty easy choice. Its a shitty choice. Its an unbelievably shitty choice. But don't you fucking dare pick "Nazi" and then have the fucking gall to try to claim the moral high ground on me.

You fucking shits. You've had four years of horror and misery to see what Trump is, and you're going to do your level best to damn us to more of it. And then have the fucking nerve to pat yourselves on the back and call it principle while the world burns. Well, if that's what you do, then may you burn with it.

Again: Go tell the children in Trump's concentration camps that their suffering is worth it so you can feel good about yourself. You fucking coward.

[loomer]

If you demand those who won't vote for Biden own their support for Trump, then you must in turn own your support for Biden. Do you disagree?

[The Romulan Republic]

If you demand those who won't vote for Biden own their support for Trump, then you must in turn own your support for Biden. Do you disagree?

Sure. But it does not follow that I am "okay" with rape, as Ralin characterized me. He's trying to insinuate that I support sexual violence. I trust you can understand why I would take exception to that?

Believe me, I'd fucking love to have someone else as the nominee. Hell, if a dozen accusations came forward next week and Biden was forced to drop out in disgrace before the convention, I'd dance a jig in the fucking street. And I fucking loath the Centrists for giving us this choice.

But given a choice between "groper/rapist who's not a fascist dictator" and "groper/rapist who is a fascist dictator"... Guess what? I'm going to vote "not Nazi". Refusing to vote for Biden won't do anything to help survivors of sexual violence, because Trump is at least as bad for them in his personal conduct as Biden, and manifestly worse in the policies he supports. All refusing to vote for Biden will do is hurt sexual assault survivors... and a whole shit load of other people too.

Oh, and let Ralin feel good about himself and praise his moral superiority. Can't forget that.

[loomer]

If you demand those who won't vote for Biden own their support for Trump, then you must in turn own your support for Biden. Do you disagree?

Sure. But it does not follow that I am "okay" with rape, as Ralin characterized me. He's trying to insinuate that I support sexual violence. I trust you can understand why I would take exception to that?

Believe me, I'd fucking love to have someone else as the nominee. Hell, if a dozen accusations came forward next week and Biden was forced to drop out in disgrace before the convention, I'd dance a jig in the fucking street. And I fucking loath the Centrists for giving us this choice.

But given a choice between "groper/rapist who's not a fascist dictator" and "groper/rapist who is a fascist dictator"... Guess what? I'm going to vote "not Nazi". Refusing to vote for Biden won't do anything to help survivors of sexual violence, because Trump is at least as bad for them in his personal conduct as Biden, and manifestly worse in the policies he supports. All refusing to vote for Biden will do is hurt sexual assault survivors... and a whole shit load of other people too.

Oh, and let Ralin feel good about himself and praise his moral superiority. Can't forget that.

The reality is that by voting for a rapist, you support a rapist. This may be a compromise worth making to stave off fascism, but don't lose sight of the simple fact that Biden is a wretched piece of shit and voting for him is, in fact, supporting him - no matter how much you dislike him, the only two meaningful ways to show support are in the bank balance and the ballot box. Ralin is right in his characterization, however distasteful you find it.

[Ralin]

So that's your argument? "TRR supports rape?" I guess that'll enter this board's canon alongside other such gems as "TRR is a fascist", "TRR hates Russians", "TRR hates Chinese people", "TRR supports genocide", and have as much truth as all of them. Fuck you.

I am not "okay" with electing a rapist. That is a vicious, disgusting, despicable libel, intended fully and consciously to associate me and my views with support for sexual assault. I made my views on Biden and his character very clear, as I made my views on who I preferred for the nomination

You do goddamn realize you've just accused everyone who doesn't fall in line and vote for Biden of being a Trump supporter/Nazi, right?

But given a choice between a rapist, and a rapist who's also a Nazi and a climate denier... yeah, that's a pretty easy choice. Its a shitty choice. Its an unbelievably shitty choice. But don't you fucking dare pick "Nazi" and then have the fucking gall to try to claim the moral high ground on me.

You fucking shits. You've had four years of horror and misery to see what Trump is, and you're going to do your level best to damn us to more of it. And then have the fucking nerve to pat yourselves on the back and call it principle while the world burns. Well, if that's what you do, then may you burn with it.

Or, crazy thought, hope that enough liberal voters shouting loudly that they won’t vote Democrat in the general election strong arms the party into nominating someone whose main qualifications aren’t ‘not Trump,’ ‘has probably raped way fewer people than Trump’ and ‘is friends with Obama.’ A party that responds to the #MeToo movement by giving us fucking Biden as their candidate doesn’t deserve support.

Again: Go tell the children in Trump's concentration camps that their suffering is worth it so you can feel good about yourself. You fucking coward.

Go tell that lady Biden shoved up against a wall and finger-fucked that he gets a pass because we…need him…to beat Trump.

[Gandalf]

So we're officially at the "Yeah, but [Republican Opponent] is worse" phase of things.

I look forward to the half arsed utilitarianism.

[The Romulan Republic]

I mean, its objectively true that Trump is worse. Both in this and many other ways.

But sure, let's help a fascist win, and then pat ourselves on the back for how principled we were while every single remaining civil liberty and constrain on Presidential power is systematically stripped away and, oh yeah, the entire planetary ecosystem burns.

If you demand those who won't vote for Biden own their support for Trump, then you must in turn own your support for Biden. Do you disagree?

Sure. But it does not follow that I am "okay" with rape, as Ralin characterized me. He's trying to insinuate that I support sexual violence. I trust you can understand why I would take exception to that?

Believe me, I'd fucking love to have someone else as the nominee. Hell, if a dozen accusations came forward next week and Biden was forced to drop out in disgrace before the convention, I'd dance a jig in the fucking street. And I fucking loath the Centrists for giving us this choice.

But given a choice between "groper/rapist who's not a fascist dictator" and "groper/rapist who is a fascist dictator"... Guess what? I'm going to vote "not Nazi". Refusing to vote for Biden won't do anything to help survivors of sexual violence, because Trump is at least as bad for them in his personal conduct as Biden, and manifestly worse in the policies he supports. All refusing to vote for Biden will do is hurt sexual assault survivors... and a whole shit load of other people too.

Oh, and let Ralin feel good about himself and praise his moral superiority. Can't forget that.

The reality is that by voting for a rapist, you support a rapist. This may be a compromise worth making to stave off fascism, but don't lose sight of the simple fact that Biden is a wretched piece of shit and voting for him is, in fact, supporting him - no matter how much you dislike him, the only two meaningful ways to show support are in the bank balance and the ballot box. Ralin is right in his characterization, however distasteful you find it.

I may be voting for Biden, but that does not mean that I condone every act he has ever committed. That's an absurd position. By that standard, nearly the entire American electorate is pro-rape. Ralin's implication, as I perceived it, is that I am "okay" with rape, that I consider rape an acceptable act. That is a lie, and its a particularly disgusting one. But if you're willing to sink that low in personal attacks, go ahead, and I'll hit the report button.

Let me point out, again, that helping Trump win by refusing to support Biden won't actually do anything to help survivors of sexual assault. You say that if I support Biden, I have to own supporting a rapist. Well, what about Ralin? If his actions help reelect Trump, doesn't he have to own supporting a rapist? Because, guess what? He's still helping a rapist win- plus he'selecting someone who's policies are across the board worse for women and survivors of sexual abuse.

If every possible option helps a rapist win... then I'm going to pick the one that does the least harm, both to survivors of sexual abuse and everybody else. It is unbelievably shitty that those are the options. But there is absolutely no universe in which helping Trump win is better for survivors of sexual abuse than helping Joe Biden win.

Or, crazy thought, hope that enough liberal voters shouting loudly that they won’t vote Democrat in the general election strong arms the party into nominating someone whose main qualifications aren’t ‘not Trump,’ ‘has probably raped way fewer people than Trump’ and ‘is friends with Obama.’ A party that responds to the #MeToo movement by giving us fucking Biden as their candidate doesn’t deserve support.

I'm operating on the assumption that Biden will be the nominee, because anything else is pure wishing at this point.

If it works out differently, and something forces him out, I'll be happy, but I'll be pretty fucking surprised.

[loomer]

Sure. But it does not follow that I am "okay" with rape, as Ralin characterized me. He's trying to insinuate that I support sexual violence. I trust you can understand why I would take exception to that?

Believe me, I'd fucking love to have someone else as the nominee. Hell, if a dozen accusations came forward next week and Biden was forced to drop out in disgrace before the convention, I'd dance a jig in the fucking street. And I fucking loath the Centrists for giving us this choice.

But given a choice between "groper/rapist who's not a fascist dictator" and "groper/rapist who is a fascist dictator"... Guess what? I'm going to vote "not Nazi". Refusing to vote for Biden won't do anything to help survivors of sexual violence, because Trump is at least as bad for them in his personal conduct as Biden, and manifestly worse in the policies he supports. All refusing to vote for Biden will do is hurt sexual assault survivors... and a whole shit load of other people too.

Oh, and let Ralin feel good about himself and praise his moral superiority. Can't forget that.

The reality is that by voting for a rapist, you support a rapist. This may be a compromise worth making to stave off fascism, but don't lose sight of the simple fact that Biden is a wretched piece of shit and voting for him is, in fact, supporting him - no matter how much you dislike him, the only two meaningful ways to show support are in the bank balance and the ballot box. Ralin is right in his characterization, however distasteful you find it.

I may be voting for Biden, but that does not mean that I condone every act he has ever committed. That's an absurd position. By that standard, nearly the entire American electorate is pro-rape. Ralin's implication, as I perceived it, is that I am "okay" with rape, that I consider rape an acceptable act. That is a lie, and its a particularly disgusting one. But if you're willing to sink that low in personal attacks, go ahead, and I'll hit the report button.

Let me point out, again, that helping Trump win by refusing to support Biden won't actually do anything to help survivors of sexual assault. You say that if I support Biden, I have to own supporting a rapist. Well, what about Ralin? If his actions help reelect Trump, doesn't he have to own supporting a rapist? Because, guess what? He's still helping a rapist win- plus he'selecting someone who's policies are across the board worse for women and survivors of sexual abuse.

If every possible option helps a rapist win... then I'm going to pick the one that does the least harm, both to survivors of sexual abuse and everybody else. It is unbelievably shitty that those are the options. But there is absolutely no universe in which helping Trump win is better for survivors of sexual abuse than helping Joe Biden win.

Yes, and? You are still supporting a rapist in the name of stopping fascism. You may find it objectionable to summarize your position thus, but it is accurate. Ralin might indirectly assist the re-election of a rapist by not actively voting for either candidate, or might vote third party (you yanks really need preferential voting already, really helps with that sort of thing) on the basis of conscience. There is a marked distinction between actively supporting the rapist and refusing to vote for one.

Again, this is the simple reality of the situation. You are going to vote for a rapist to stop a fascist. Stop crying when people characterize that as you being okay with vothing for a rapist, because fundamentally, when you vote for him you're saying 'rape will not stop me from supporting this candidate against a fascist'. Own it, rather than throwing these absurd hissy fits. Yes, Biden is a shockingly awful human being, and yes, you are willing to vote for a shockingly awful human being to try and keep an even worse one out of office. But do not confuse the act of actively participating in this process, and thus legitimizing it, with the principled refusal to participate.

When people opt in to a bad choice, they say 'okay, I accept that these choices are legitimate'. Every vote is another stamp of approval - another voice adding to the consensus that makes the entire system work. Those who refuse to opt in to that choice by casting a null ballot, by contrast, actively lodge their voice against the consensus that these options are acceptable. The end result may still be a Trump victory, but it is one that did not involve mortgaging your consent to be governed to the service of a rapist to try and stop it.

You present yourself as the man who cares about democracy and rights. It's time for you to start actually thinking about what that means in a situation where the entire system has failed. Read up on the principle of no-saying in democratic discourse.

[Ralin]

Man. I certainly look forward to the time when the GOP starts nominating presidential candidates who aren't so obviously bad that we're morally obligated to vote for a rapist if that's the alternative the Democratic Party decides to give us.

That's going to happen, right? Because the alternative is that the Democrats can nominate literally anyone and we'll have to just suck it up and accept it. Indefinitely.

[The Romulan Republic]

Man. I certainly look forward to the time when the GOP starts nominating presidential candidates who aren't so obviously bad that we're morally obligated to vote for a rapist if that's the alternative the Democratic Party decides to give us.

That's going to happen, right? Because the alternative is that the Democrats can nominate literally anyone and we'll have to just suck it up and accept it. Indefinitely.

Oh, this one again. I remember this one from 2016.

"We need Trump to win to teach the DNC a lesson, so they won't keep nominating shitty candidates."

Tell me, how did that one work out again?

No, the alternative isn't to just accept it indefinitely. The alternative is to keep the fucking sinking ship afloat for four more years, because every single year that goes by more Boomers die and more young people and Latinos who supported Sanders become eligible to vote.

Or, you know, we could elect a dictator for life to teach to the DNC a lesson, and none of those new voters will ever get a chance to be heard. Yeah, that seems better.

Also, again, if your actions help Trump win, you are yourself supporting a rapist. Even if you don't want to admit it.

The reality is that by voting for a rapist, you support a rapist. This may be a compromise worth making to stave off fascism, but don't lose sight of the simple fact that Biden is a wretched piece of shit and voting for him is, in fact, supporting him - no matter how much you dislike him, the only two meaningful ways to show support are in the bank balance and the ballot box. Ralin is right in his characterization, however distasteful you find it.

I may be voting for Biden, but that does not mean that I condone every act he has ever committed. That's an absurd position. By that standard, nearly the entire American electorate is pro-rape. Ralin's implication, as I perceived it, is that I am "okay" with rape, that I consider rape an acceptable act. That is a lie, and its a particularly disgusting one. But if you're willing to sink that low in personal attacks, go ahead, and I'll hit the report button.

Let me point out, again, that helping Trump win by refusing to support Biden won't actually do anything to help survivors of sexual assault. You say that if I support Biden, I have to own supporting a rapist. Well, what about Ralin? If his actions help reelect Trump, doesn't he have to own supporting a rapist? Because, guess what? He's still helping a rapist win- plus he'selecting someone who's policies are across the board worse for women and survivors of sexual abuse.

If every possible option helps a rapist win... then I'm going to pick the one that does the least harm, both to survivors of sexual abuse and everybody else. It is unbelievably shitty that those are the options. But there is absolutely no universe in which helping Trump win is better for survivors of sexual abuse than helping Joe Biden win.

Yes, and? You are still supporting a rapist in the name of stopping fascism. You may find it objectionable to summarize your position thus, but it is accurate. Ralin might indirectly assist the re-election of a rapist by not actively voting for either candidate, or might vote third party (you yanks really need preferential voting already, really helps with that sort of thing) on the basis of conscience. There is a marked distinction between actively supporting the rapist and refusing to vote for one.

Again, this is the simple reality of the situation. You are going to vote for a rapist to stop a fascist. Stop crying when people characterize that as you being okay with vothing for a rapist, because fundamentally, when you vote for him you're saying 'rape will not stop me from supporting this candidate against a fascist'. Own it, rather than throwing these absurd hissy fits. Yes, Biden is a shockingly awful human being, and yes, you are willing to vote for a shockingly awful human being to try and keep an even worse one out of office. But do not confuse the act of actively participating in this process, and thus legitimizing it, with the principled refusal to participate.

When people opt in to a bad choice, they say 'okay, I accept that these choices are legitimate'. Every vote is another stamp of approval - another voice adding to the consensus that makes the entire system work. Those who refuse to opt in to that choice by casting a null ballot, by contrast, actively lodge their voice against the consensus that these options are acceptable. The end result may still be a Trump victory, but it is one that did not involve mortgaging your consent to be governed to the service of a rapist to try and stop it.

You present yourself as the man who cares about democracy and rights. It's time for you to start actually thinking about what that means in a situation where the entire system has failed. Read up on the principle of no-saying in democratic discourse.

1. You cannot just handwave away that refusing to vote for Biden will also help a rapist win, in addition to hurting a bunch of other people. Oh, you can say there's a difference between voting for someone and refusing to vote/voting third party, but in a two-party system the practical result is still to help Trump.

2. By handwaving away Ralin's culpability for his choices, you are showing yourself to be every bit as disingenuous a hypocrite as you accuse me of being.

3. What will "no-saying" accomplish here? Besides letting a few self-styled progressives feel good about themselves while the world burns?

What do you think I should do? Because you're not American. You don't have to make this choice. And maybe that makes it easier for you to sit back and fucking judge. But tell me? What do you think I should do, if "the entire system has failed"? Take to the streets? In the middle of a nation-wide lockdown? Pick up a gun and start shooting Republicans, or DNC officials? What do you think I should do, if not vote for the best possible option available under the circumstances?

You can dress it up in whatever excuses you want- at the end of the day, we are talking about looking at the last four years of Trump, at the children in cages, the treason accusations, the purges of political opponents, the war-mongering against multiple countries, the climate denialism, the wholesale environmental destruction, the systematic destruction of womens' rights, making states engage in an ass-kissing contest for coronavirus aid, fucking ethnic cleansing, committed by a Klan-endorsed mob boss who oh by the way is also a rapist... and saying "Yeah, I'd rather have four more years of that than sully my hands by voting for Joe Biden."

And then having the gall to call that fucking principles.

[bilateralrope]

For those of you who are going to refuse to vote for Biden, what do you think your lack of vote will accomplish ?

Or look to history and ask: How often has a refusal to vote in an election accomplished anything ?

Because it seems to me that not voting for whatever reason always has the same effect: The people who don't vote get ignored when it comes to deciding what government does. It doesn't matter if they have a religious objection to voting, a principled one, they accidentally spoiled their ballot or they were the victims of voter suppression.

I understand what TRR hopes to accomplish. Get Trump out, worry about getting rid of Biden later. I don't like it, but I'd be doing the same if I was able to vote in US elections.

[The Romulan Republic]

Thank you. Its nice when someone gets it.

To be clear, I will make one absolute exception to the above, and I should have said this sooner: I will not judge anyone who has actually experienced sexual abuse for not voting for Biden. I can't ask someone who's experienced that to make that choice, and I won't judge the actions or feelings of someone who's lived through that. I don't have that right. Neither does anybody else who hasn't experienced that. If survivors vote for him, that's their choice and I respect it. If they don't, likewise.

To the rest of you... I'll admit, I can be an asshole. I'm not exactly a great example of party unity myself. That's on me. But I've always been pretty consistent on the need to stop Trump, because no other reform is possible if we don't do that first. Everything hinges on that. It subsumes all other issues. And it fucking terrifies me to think that after what we've see the last four years, we might end up doing it all over again. Only it'll be worse, because most of the checks that were on Trump will now be gone.

And yes, if "progressive" defections damn us to that, I will judge the people responsible for it. Because you've seen Trump. If you've been paying attention at all, you know what he is, and what the stakes are, much more clearly even than in 2016.

[loomer]

I may be voting for Biden, but that does not mean that I condone every act he has ever committed. That's an absurd position. By that standard, nearly the entire American electorate is pro-rape. Ralin's implication, as I perceived it, is that I am "okay" with rape, that I consider rape an acceptable act. That is a lie, and its a particularly disgusting one. But if you're willing to sink that low in personal attacks, go ahead, and I'll hit the report button.

Let me point out, again, that helping Trump win by refusing to support Biden won't actually do anything to help survivors of sexual assault. You say that if I support Biden, I have to own supporting a rapist. Well, what about Ralin? If his actions help reelect Trump, doesn't he have to own supporting a rapist? Because, guess what? He's still helping a rapist win- plus he'selecting someone who's policies are across the board worse for women and survivors of sexual abuse.

If every possible option helps a rapist win... then I'm going to pick the one that does the least harm, both to survivors of sexual abuse and everybody else. It is unbelievably shitty that those are the options. But there is absolutely no universe in which helping Trump win is better for survivors of sexual abuse than helping Joe Biden win.

Yes, and? You are still supporting a rapist in the name of stopping fascism. You may find it objectionable to summarize your position thus, but it is accurate. Ralin might indirectly assist the re-election of a rapist by not actively voting for either candidate, or might vote third party (you yanks really need preferential voting already, really helps with that sort of thing) on the basis of conscience. There is a marked distinction between actively supporting the rapist and refusing to vote for one.

Again, this is the simple reality of the situation. You are going to vote for a rapist to stop a fascist. Stop crying when people characterize that as you being okay with vothing for a rapist, because fundamentally, when you vote for him you're saying 'rape will not stop me from supporting this candidate against a fascist'. Own it, rather than throwing these absurd hissy fits. Yes, Biden is a shockingly awful human being, and yes, you are willing to vote for a shockingly awful human being to try and keep an even worse one out of office. But do not confuse the act of actively participating in this process, and thus legitimizing it, with the principled refusal to participate.

When people opt in to a bad choice, they say 'okay, I accept that these choices are legitimate'. Every vote is another stamp of approval - another voice adding to the consensus that makes the entire system work. Those who refuse to opt in to that choice by casting a null ballot, by contrast, actively lodge their voice against the consensus that these options are acceptable. The end result may still be a Trump victory, but it is one that did not involve mortgaging your consent to be governed to the service of a rapist to try and stop it.

You present yourself as the man who cares about democracy and rights. It's time for you to start actually thinking about what that means in a situation where the entire system has failed. Read up on the principle of no-saying in democratic discourse.

1. You cannot just handwave away that refusing to vote for Biden will also help a rapist win, in addition to hurting a bunch of other people. Oh, you can say there's a difference between voting for someone and refusing to vote/voting third party, but in a two-party system the practical result is still to help Trump.

I haven't handwaved it away. What I've pointed out is a distinction you don't seem to understand, which is that there is a difference between action and inaction even if they reach the same outcome.

You have four options.
1. Vote Blue No Matter Who. Outcome: Trump probably still wins (Biden ain't beating Trump). You have voted for a rapist. You have participated in, and thus endorsed, the democratic process that elected Trump.
2. Vote Trump. Outcome: Trump wins.
3. Vote Third Party. Outcome: Trump probably still wins, but you haven't voted for a rapist. You have participated in, and thus endorsed, the democratic process that elected Trump.
4. No-say by casting a void ballot. Outcome: Trump wins. You have neither voted for a rapist nor endorsed the democratic process that elected Trump, and have instead indicated that the process is corrupt.

In all four situations, Trump probably wins. But 3 and 4 avoid the personal moral compromise of having actively supported a rapist. You may feel that compromise is worthwhile for a slim chance of stopping Trump - that is your prerogative - but to recognize the distinction between these options and options 1 and 2 is not 'handwaving' anything. Democracy, as a consent-based process of government, views a vote for any candidate as a vote for the legitimacy of all - your participation binds you to accept the results so long as they were not illegitimately obtained.

2. By handwaving away Ralin's culpability for his choices, you are showing yourself to be every bit as disingenuous a hypocrite as you accuse me of being.

I have handwaved nothing, TRR. I am trying to get you to understand that when Ralin says you support a rapist, he is correct. I've made no claims as to the rest of Ralin's position, which I consider him to actually be advancing in bad faith. What I have done is try to explain a basic fact of the democratic process to you, which is that democracy - as a consent based process - sometimes requires the possibility of no-saying to avoid forced dichotomies between evils.

3. What will "no-saying" accomplish here? Besides letting a few self-styled progressives feel good about themselves while the world burns?

No-saying is the basis for future civil disobedience and revolt because it helps to indicate that the election was not in fact legitimate. I believe you yourself wish to revolt if Trump wins, correct?

What do you think I should do? Because you're not American. You don't have to make this choice. And maybe that makes it easier for you to sit back and fucking judge. But tell me? What do you think I should do, if "the entire system has failed"? Take to the streets? In the middle of a nation-wide lockdown? Pick up a gun and start shooting Republicans, or DNC officials? What do you think I should do, if not vote for the best possible option available under the circumstances?

As I've said, you may find it a personal compromise worth making. If so, vote for Biden. If not, no-say and prepare for the long fight to claw democracy back from the shitshow it's become. What you shouldn't do is throw hissy-fits when people accurately characterize your position as supportive of a rapist. There's a great line from one of RTJ's songs: 'Choose the lesser of two evils people, and the devil still gon' win.'

You can dress it up in whatever excuses you want- at the end of the day, we are talking about looking at the last four years of Trump, at the children in cages, the treason accusations, the purges of political opponents, the war-mongering against multiple countries, the climate denialism, the wholesale environmental destruction, the systematic destruction of womens' rights, making states engage in an ass-kissing contest for coronavirus aid, fucking ethnic cleansing, committed by a Klan-endorsed mob boss who oh by the way is also a rapist... and saying "Yeah, I'd rather have four more years of that than sully my hands by voting for Joe Biden."

And then having the gall to call that fucking principles.

You know, TRR, it actually remains a principled stand even if it creates a worse outcome. That's the funny thing about principles: they are rarely convenient if followed consistently. Personally, I'd probably bite the bullet myself and vote for Biden because my principles, like yours, admit the possibility of choosing a lesser evil. But not everyone's do, and to disregard the possibility of those principles existing is actually anti-democratic. Pluralism of opinion is the heart of democracies, and the protection of that pluralism is really what democracy is all about.

The reason I'm bothering with you and not Ralin is that, despite our disagreements, I think you - unlike Ralin - actually have your heart in the right place. You just have a terrible pattern of hypocritical hissy-fit throwing, a hesitance to actually fully accept the ramifications of your positions, and some poorly developed concepts of democratic theory. That's why I'm recommending you go and do some reading on no-saying in democratic discourse.

[bilateralrope]

(Biden ain't beating Trump).

What data are you using to come to this conclusion ?

How does your analysis of the options change if the data shows that Biden has a chance of winning ?

No-saying is the basis for future civil disobedience and revolt because it helps to indicate that the election was not in fact legitimate.

I'm not sure I follow this.

Do you have any historical basis to suggest that a large number of people choosing not to vote* leads to the election being considered illegitimate ?

If not, why do you think 2020 will be any different ?

*People being unable to vote is a different matter.

[The Romulan Republic]

"Biden can't win" is an utterly unproveable assertion either way, but one that is not supported by what polling data we currently have or the precedent of Presidents who bungled a national crisis on this scale. It is, however, an increasingly popular excuse for Leftists who don't want to support him.

To be blunt, it strikes me as (ironically, given what I've been accused of) a way for them to avoid taking responsibility for their actions, by claiming that the defeat they're working toward is inevitable. Inevitability is always a real nice excuse to do shitty things.

[bilateralrope]

I remember how many people were saying that Trump couldn't beat Hillary. Until election night. I suspect that all the people saying he couldn't win then helped him win by convincing Democrat voters that they didn't need to go to the polls and convincing Republican voters that they needed to turn up. If so, I'm not sure if I want the people saying that Biden can't win to stop.

I'm only questioning it here because it's a major assumption in Loomer's reasoning.

[The Romulan Republic]

Problem is, Democrats and Republicans tend to react to being the underdog in different ways. Republicans get fired up, insist they're the real majority, turn out, and cheat their way to winning.

Democrats, on the other hand, tend to accept that they're going to lose and give up.

The Republicans are evil, their methods are vile, but damn, I wish our party had as much spirit in the face of adversity as they do.

Edit: This even goes for the progressive wing. If everyone who supported Bernie and his ideals had voted Bernie, he'd be the nominee now. Don't believe that? He was winning until South Carolina and a string of well-timed endorsements made Biden look "inevitable". And people who had been going to vote Bernie swung to Biden, because he was "safe" and "electable". Youth turn out was lower than it should have been too, and I guarantee a big part of that was the assumption that "its rigged" and "Bernie won't win anyway".

That's the hard truth for progressives, which unfortunately many of us aren't willing to admit. We didn't lose because the crooked DNC rigged it against Bernie. We did it to ourselves. We didn't turn out, and we gave up, and we fought with each other. And now a bunch of us are going to defect to Trump, again, and put all the blame on the DNC, which God knows deserves some blame, but if we don't admit that we ultimately beat ourselves, we're going to keep doing it again and again.

[Gandalf]

Saying that Sanders was winning until SC gave Biden a world of momentum ignores the fact that he was against a fractured field of fairly similar candidates. Had it just been him versus one of those people, it would likely be 2016 all over again.