What Did We Learn? The 2020 Election Version
- Thread starter TGHusker
- Start date
GSG
New member
Cdog923
New member
Abrams is a star in the making; she absolutely could have been Biden's VP, but she was probably more valuable in Georgia during this election cycle.
TGHusker
New member
One more pound and he'd be considered obese per the article. He wouldn't want that label now would he - a doctor could get fired for being truthful about the weight. It is just the opposite of 'count the votes, all of the legal votes'. I guess that one pound is an illegal pound.
knapplc
Active member
ZRod
Active member
Enhance
Administrator
The three biggest things I learned:
- I still don't understand Trump support. There are several things Trump has done as president that I agree with, but failures on some of his biggest 2016 campaign initiatives (as well as his general behavior, demeanor, personality and abundant personal life concerns) are enough of a red flag to me that he should've never been elected president in the first place or been in the fight for a re-election. I've talked to Trump supporters. I've heard them. Their brazen disregard for his faults simply can't find it's way into acceptance in my brain. I guess it is what it is.
- States should look at their vote counting practices. Coronavirus played a massive role in this election, particularly in the number of people who used mail-in voting. But, I think this really shined light on just how misaligned states are when it comes to a federal election. It seems just and fair for every state to play by the same rules and the same requirements. Perhaps that is a pipe dream, but Florida learned their lesson after 2000 and changed their laws. Perhaps other states should do the same
- Democrats need to revamp themselves. I voted for Biden for more reasons than just disliking Trump, but, the party is long overdue for a meaningful self-evaluation. As I posted in another thread, I agree with what a political commentator said recently when he said a lot of Democrats seem to care more about policing social issues than they do improving the lives of the average American. It's time Democrats stop twisting their platforms into caricatures of themselves and trying to undermine their own policies.
Mierin
Donor
What do you mean by policing social issues? Do you mean just talking about them or actual policy? If the latter, which shouldn't they spend as much time on?
Enhance
Administrator
It's sort of all-encompassing. Most Americans care about social issues, but most Americans are also interested in living their lives, securing a comfortable retirement, having a healthy family, and going to work. I don't think Democrats do a good enough job relating to those kinds of people. It's OK to be the party associated with equality and social reform. It's incredibly important, actually. But, there's obviously a lot more to manage out there in the world, and to large swaths of America, I don't think Democrats do a good enough job addressing day-to-day concerns.
To be clear, I think a lot of Republicans fall on the opposite side of this. They seemingly care far less about social and racial injustice than they should. They're the 'you make your own path in life' people, and I think most of us realize that there are a lot of people who, despite their best efforts, are still held back because of the color of their skin, where they grew up, their sexual preference, etc.
Mierin
Donor
I would argue some of the social policies the Democrats want would help with those things. That's why I'm curious which you think they should spend less time on. I think they can get a hell of a lot better at messaging to show that the social issues they are promoting will help a larger group of people.
Last edited by a moderator:
Once Biden is announced the winner, social issues will again fade to the background.
They are useful in an election year.
Enhance
Administrator
It doesn't really have much to do with spending 'less time' on specific social issues for me; for example, I'm not saying something like 'they should or shouldn't spend more time on LGBT rights vs. net neutrality.' It has more to do with how their actions and messages are perceived by those outside of their bubble/party.
Here's an example of what I'm talking about in relation to the James Scurlock case. Within 24-48 hours of his death, Kara Eastman claimed his death was "cold-blooded murder." This was without intimate knowledge of the situation or facts. The Douglas County Attorney Don Kleine (who was a democrat) ultimately felt he couldn't bring charges on the Jake Gardner, which was largely met with agreement in the legal community. The Nebraska Democratic Party then lambasted Kleine and claimed his decision "perpetuated white supremacy," ultimately causing him to be shunned from segments of the party and him choosing to leave it.
This is obviously hyperlocal, but it's that type of behavior on the national scale to social issues that I think disenfranchises large swaths of Americans from being able to support and relate to liberal polices/candidates. This situation actually played a role in why I didn't vote for Kara Eastman. A would-be senator making inaccurate claims about a shooting death, without facts, is a bad look.
Mierin
Donor
This is a good example that helps me get your meaning. It was a stupid move by Eastman. I've been guilty of it before but think I learned my lesson. And at the time there wasn't enough evidence to charge him. What he said made sense for the most part.
This is a segue related to Gardner, not arguing with you here. But I feel we have some stupid laws when it comes to guns and self defense. I'm thinking even more of the teenager in Oregon. If you purposely bring a gun into a tense situation and then people get scared of you and throw a harmless object at you, you really shouldn't be able to claim self defense. Honestly, even if they try to tackle you, I would argue you shouldn't be able to claim self defense if you kill them. I mean, what if Dylan Klebold (or any other mass shooter) ran into a crowd with a gun and before he was able to kill anyone, someone took him down, then he fell on his back and shot them in the head. Would that be much different than the teenager in Oregon claiming self defense? Why can these people wave guns around in situations like this, when we've had so many mass shootings, and then claim self defense? Obviously the claim doesn't always work out for them but I have seen lots of lunatics defending the kid. It seems to me there is a double standard. Some are considered heroes for taking down someone who has a gun, others are considered attackers of an innocent person who was acting in self defense. I think the person who brings a gun outside of their home should hold some of the responsibility.
I don't think the self defense law was meant for these kinds of situations.
Last edited by a moderator: