The 2020 Presidential Election - Convention & General Election

[Danny Bateman]

6 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

 

It's clear neither of you watched the clip.

 

Whether you agree with him or not, it's useful to understand people that don't agree with you politically. At least don't complain about about progressives and others not voting for Biden if you're not even willing to hear them out.

 

I watched the clip and it felt like pulling teeth. I don't like Kulinski or respect his opinion.

 

I heard him out. He complained about people not honestly engaging him or hearing what he was actually saying and then called Biden a war criminal rapist. He can go pound sand.

[RedDenver]

1 minute ago, Danny Bateman said:

I watched the clip and it felt like pulling teeth. I don't like Kulinski or respect his opinion.

 

I heard him out. He complained about people not honestly engaging him or hearing what he was actually saying and then called Biden a war criminal rapist. He can go pound sand.

He also clearly spelled out 3 ways Biden's campaign could appeal to him.

[FrantzHardySwag]

13 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

He also clearly spelled out 3 ways Biden's campaign could appeal to him.

Some takeaways,

 

*He calls Biden a rapist and war criminal.

 

*His ways of winning his vote are: Pick one of two people to be his running mate, or adopt multiple of Bernies policies and write on paper that he assures he's going to do these things - then follows that up with "He's not going to do it anyways, so I'm not voting for him". 

 

*Says many people are overselling Biden and underselling Trump. 

 

There is absolutely no way he's voting Biden and that much is clear, there is no pandering to him. Biden should focus on votes he can actually flip. Vote whoever you want, but just cause your privileged enough to survive another Trump presidency doesn't mean everyone is, I'll cast my vote for those people who stand the most to lose. Noam gets that, Bernie gets that, I get that - Kyle seems to be so focused on ME ME ME ME, he doesn't.

[Danny Bateman]

47 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

He also clearly spelled out 3 ways Biden's campaign could appeal to him.

 

Yeah Kulinski said that. But just like he doesn't believe Biden would really further anything he cares about, I don't really believe he'd actually do so even if Biden made every concession on his list. I'm halfway convinced he'd just find something new to complain about and cite it as a principled reason to not vote.

 

His business model revolves around him criticizing the establishment.

[RedDenver]

19 minutes ago, FrantzHardySwag said:

Some takeaways,

 

*He calls Biden a rapist and war criminal.

 

*His ways of winning his vote are: Pick one of two people to be his running mate, or adopt multiple of Bernies policies and write on paper that he assures he's going to do these things - then follows that up with "He's not going to do it anyways, so I'm not voting for him". 

 

*Says many people are overselling Biden and underselling Trump. 

 

There is absolutely no way he's voting Biden and that much is clear, there is no pandering to him. Biden should focus on votes he can actually flip. Vote whoever you want, but just cause your privileged enough to survive another Trump presidency doesn't mean everyone is, I'll cast my vote for those people who stand the most to lose. Noam gets that, Bernie gets that, I get that - Kyle seems to be so focused on ME ME ME ME, he doesn't.

Kulinski explains how biden could get his vote, but the take away is there's no way for Biden could get his vote? Not even any discussion of the ways he's given for Biden to get his vote, just simply turn to the "other voters" Biden's going to get. And Biden's apparently going to get these other voters without appealing to them because then those other voters would by implication be ME ME ME ME.

[RedDenver]

Just now, Danny Bateman said:

 

Yeah Kulinski said that. But just like he doesn't believe Biden would really further anything he cares about, I don't really believe he'd actually do so even if Biden made every concession on his list. I'm halfway convinced he'd just find something new to complain about and cite it as a principled reason to not vote.

 

His business model revolves on him criticizing the establishment.

Well, good luck beating Trump without giving an inch to anyone not already voting Biden.

[funhusker]

Sometimes I think "the left" overthinks things.  I appreciate, I really do, the thoughtful discussions in this forum.  The people of "the left" have morals and stand up for them.  That is a good thing.

 

But, as of today, one of two people will be President after this election: Biden or Trump.  It might suck, but it is what it is.  Until "ranked choice" voting is a thing, this is our reality.  Deal with it.  Make the best of a s#!tty situation.  And get back to work to advance policy through the super efficient channels of lobbyists!

[Danny Bateman]

19 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Well, good luck beating Trump without giving an inch to anyone not already voting Biden.

 

That's not what I said. I specifically said I don't like Kulinski or care much about his opinion.

 

I've said multiple times I don't think these leftist media personalities are actually good proxies for more progressive voters.  A far more honest, unbiased assessment could be had by examining folks who don't have a financial incentive to throw bombs at the establishment.

[RedDenver]

2 minutes ago, Danny Bateman said:

That's not what I said. I specifically said I don't like Kulinski or care much about his opinion.

 

I've said multiple times I don't think these leftist media personalities are actually good proxies for more progressive voters.  A far more honest, unbiased assessment could be had by examining folks who don't have a financial stake in throwing bombs at the establishment.

Literally everyone that's analyzing politics for a living has a financial stake. Every single one. But I guess it's easier to throw "leftist media personalities" into a bucket that you can safely ignore.

 

Look, I don't care if you hate Kulinski or not, but he and people with opinions similar to his could be appealed to but you won't even judge his proposals on the merits. Just speculation that Kulinski wouldn't do what he said based on nothing but your own opinion.

[Danny Bateman]

13 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Literally everyone that's analyzing politics for a living has a financial stake. Every single one. But I guess it's easier to throw "leftist media personalities" into a bucket that you can safely ignore.

 

Look, I don't care if you hate Kulinski or not, but he and people with opinions similar to his could be appealed to but you won't even judge his proposals on the merits. Just speculation that Kulinski wouldn't do what he said based on nothing but your own opinion.

 

That's kind of the point, though. I don't look to these type of commentators for my political opinions. I don't care any more what Kulinski thinks about politics than I do Rachel Maddow or Bret Baier or any of the rest of them. I just want info. I try my best to think through everything critically for myself.

 

I don't hate Kulinski, I just don't value his opinion. That said, it is still useful to understand what progressives are listening to.

 

Of course I'm judging his appeals on the merits. I agree with him that Trump was right in addressing criminal justice reform and that weed should be legal. I disagree on TPP but that's a substantive disagreement not a personality-driven one. I think the labels he slapped on Biden in that video were bullsh#t. And on the whole I don't view him as a good-faith operator when it comes to moderates like Biden because, again, he makes money critiquing them.

[Nebfanatic]

6 hours ago, RedDenver said:

Kyle Kulinski addresses Chomsky's comments and does a good job explaining his own position of not voting, why, and 3 different ways how he could be convinced to vote for Biden. If you're serious about convincing more people on the left to vote Biden, then I strongly recommend watching this:

 

I don't think he does a good job at all refuting Chomskys point. What Chomsky is saying still rings true regardless of Kyle's reasoning for not voting Biden. What Chomsky is saying has historical context whereas Kyle is viewing the issue through his own political lense. Chomsky is the far more respected intellectual and its clear why. Kulinski is lucky he can fire responses off into the internet void. If it was a debate setting with Chomsky he would get eaten alive. 

 

The very first point he makes is a half point. He cuts off the Chomsky quote. He said specifically in a swing state. He said its just arithmetic. Kyle doesn't want to get into a debate about that. 

[BigRedBuster]

 

[RedDenver]

11 hours ago, Danny Bateman said:

That's kind of the point, though. I don't look to these type of commentators for my political opinions. I don't care any more what Kulinski thinks about politics than I do Rachel Maddow or Bret Baier or any of the rest of them. I just want info. I try my best to think through everything critically for myself.

 

I don't hate Kulinski, I just don't value his opinion. That said, it is still useful to understand what progressives are listening to.

 

Of course I'm judging his appeals on the merits. I agree with him that Trump was right in addressing criminal justice reform and that weed should be legal. I disagree on TPP but that's a substantive disagreement not a personality-driven one. I think the labels he slapped on Biden in that video were bullsh#t. And on the whole I don't view him as a good-faith operator when it comes to moderates like Biden because, again, he makes money critiquing them.

Thanks for your response. We agree fairly closely on this as I don't agree with the labels he put on Biden, but I do agree with him on TPP, criminal justice, and weed. However, I think it's possible to take what he's proposing and evaluate it separate from what I think about Kulinshi - same for Maddow or Baier - regardless of whether he's a good-faith operator or not.

 

I wasn't clear, but I meant his appeals as in the proposals Kulinski made for getting his vote, not why he isn't voting for Biden:

1) Picking Bernie or Nina Turner as his VP.

2) Adopting 1 or 2 of Bernie's top 5 policies.

3) Adopting a list of ten executive orders for progressive policies that Biden would execute in his first 100 days. (Note that Kulinski thought this last one was what Bernie should have gotten out of Biden before he dropped out.)

[RedDenver]

11 hours ago, Nebfanatic said:

I don't think he does a good job at all refuting Chomskys point. What Chomsky is saying still rings true regardless of Kyle's reasoning for not voting Biden. What Chomsky is saying has historical context whereas Kyle is viewing the issue through his own political lense. Chomsky is the far more respected intellectual and its clear why. Kulinski is lucky he can fire responses off into the internet void. If it was a debate setting with Chomsky he would get eaten alive. 

 

The very first point he makes is a half point. He cuts off the Chomsky quote. He said specifically in a swing state. He said its just arithmetic. Kyle doesn't want to get into a debate about that. 

I mean, Chomsky is wrong on the arithmetic, so I'm not sure how he'd win that debate. Ask yourself: do we add one to Trump's vote count when someone casts a vote for a third party or doesn't vote? Because if we do, then Trump will win in a landslide. If we don't, then Chomsky is wrong. That's the math.

 

And the logic also fails because it's not consistent. There's nothing about Trump that makes not voting somehow a vote for Trump, which means that logically not voting is also a vote for Biden or any other candidate. It's easy to see this if you replace Biden's and Trump's names if letters A and B where you don't know which is which: Now is not voting a vote for B or is not voting a vote for A? You're going to see Trump supporters start using the same illogic to keep people voting for Trump: not voting or voting third party is a vote for Biden. Anyone who sees both sides doing that are going to know that both sides are being disingenuous and are going to tune them out.

[Nebfanatic]

1 minute ago, RedDenver said:

I mean, Chomsky is wrong on the arithmetic, so I'm not sure how he'd win that debate. Ask yourself: do we add one to Trump's vote count when someone casts a vote for a third party or doesn't vote? Because if we do, then Trump will win in a landslide. If we don't, then Chomsky is wrong. That's the math.

 

And the logic also fails because it's not consistent. There's nothing about Trump that makes not voting somehow a vote for Trump, which means that logically not voting is also a vote for Biden or any other candidate. It's easy to see this if you replace Biden's and Trump's names if letters A and B where you don't know which is which: Now is not voting a vote for B or is not voting a vote for A? You're going to see Trump supporters start using the same illogic to keep people voting for Trump: not voting or voting third party is a vote for Biden. Anyone who sees both sides doing that are going to know that both sides are being disingenuous and are going to tune them out.

Yes if you are taking what he is saying completely literally then he is wrong. But the fact is people who would have voted for Bernie but won't vote Biden in a swing state strongly enable Trump. Trump is going to get his votes, his base is nonmovable. If 100 people would have voted in a Bernie Trump matchup and Trump gets 45 of those votes he loses. Now if 15 of those people decide they aren't going to vote because its Trump Biden, Trump now has 45 votes to Bidens 40. Not voting absolutely enables Trump because people who would vote Trump are going to go out and vote for the guy. They aren't holding their vote in protest. I promise you, you nor Kulinski wants to get into the arithmetic debate with Chomsky. Yes at face value not voting equals not voting but there is more to it than that. You can try and pick at the logic all you want but I am willing to bet Noam has put in the legwork to back up his points. What he is saying is based in historical context. I find it hilarious Kulinski called the Hitler comparison lazy. His comparison of this situation to what happened in the 30's in Germany is spot on. He wasn't saying Trump is as bad as Hitler and frankly does he have to be? That is ridiculous. If the guy isn't *as bad* as Hitler then stopping the fascism isn't that important. What a joke