Politics Turning GA, NC, NV, and/or PA into victory (Biden vs Trump, 2020 election!)

Do you have any proof it was exaggerated or is that just subjective? Both right wing and left wing media alike published a lot of articles about rioting and such after the 2016 election. Of course they spun it there way but it's out there.

I never said that progressives or conservatives should be defined by their fringe groups. They do get defined by their fringe groups all the time though and on here it tends to get a bunch of likes when someone calls all conservatives who don't denounce everything their fringe groups do as being racist, or nazi's, or far-right extremists. So the right does the same things. I believe that American's have been radicalized though, and maybe I'm wrong, but you haven't really provided proof otherwise other than saying you're not buying it. Seems to be a winning formula here, call conservatives nazi's, far-right, racists, etc. In fact, "Silence is violence right" is the new buzzword so I guess if were silent on any of it right or left wing then we're complicit in all of it, but my guess is most people on the right will be silent about the crappy fringe groups on the right, and most people on the left will be silent on the crappy fringe groups on the left.

 

About 60 million as a matter of fact.

 

So when people vote for Biden, are they defined by everything he is or has done? When did voting for someone mean you agree with, condone or should be defined entirely by them?
Cause Bidens got 40+ years of political history and a lot of it frankly sucks.
Im not a republican and I wont be voting for Trump but this logic is either good for all or not good for anyone.

 

Unless i'm misreading you, that's exactly what we are agreeing with and its a counter to the above highlighted section from Wizen. This very conflation is used on anyone who is a republican or Voted for Trump.

 

trump is in a league of his own when it comes to corruption and if you can't see that, then not sure what to tell you. As for Biden, a lot of it doesn't "suck", especially considering who he is going up against.

 

trump is the fucking president who got 60 million votes and still has wide support. He controls all the levers of power of the federal government. He's the leader of the republican party and will be their nominee again. Conservatives own his shit because they put him in power and have supported his agenda for 45 months. especially packing the courts. And for most of them, including some in this forum, they'd give him 4 more years of the same total corruption

 

He's really not, and Biden's said and done a lot of racist crap too. The point isn't about Trump or Biden though, the point is a 'vote' for one does not mean someone agrees with everything about them, and it does not mean they as individuals should be defined by the person they voted for.
In fact, it's kinda laughable that there are so many lifers in politics, Schumer, Pelosi, Biden, McConnel, Graham, etc, and where we're at in politics today is solely attributed to "Trump" who's been in office for 45 months instead of 45 years...

 

And we disagree. Besides, who are all these people that you attribute to saying if you vote for Biden you stand for everything he stands for?

 

You have that inversed. The logic posted on this very site all the time is if you vote for Trump you're basically complicit in everything Trump does, and you can now be defined entirely by that vote.

 

If you knowingly vote(d) for a candidate who shares your morals, your morals are directly tied to that candidate. Same goes for candidates you yourself openly support.

The only time that I feel that this isn't true is when it comes to... holding your nose and voting against the opposing candidate.

 

I wonder what the statistics are but at least most of my adult life the decision seems to most be, I don't like this one, but I really don't like that other one, so most of the time voting seems to be a vote in opposition to the other party.

I don't think I've met a single person who is excited about Biden or Trump, they just think the other party is worse.

I think both parties suck and are bought off by big businesses and foreign interests, but I don't think that someone who votes for either side in the battle is at fault for what the leaders of the parties do.

 

You are way over generalizing. There might be some from both sides who may think that way, but I highly doubt it's ALL or even MOST and I think often times it's just words to rile the other side.

By the way, in my 40 plus years of voting I have never felt the person I voted for shares ALL of the same ideals as me or vice versa.

 

Sure 'all the time' is generally a hyperbolic statement but it's a fairly common colloquialism. I see the logic used pretty frequently though.

 

You vote/show support, for a candidate. They should hold the morals you yourself stand for, if they don't you shouldn't have ever voted for them (Unless holding your nose to vote). What your candidate does while in office should reflect what you yourself believe in. Therefore your morals are directly tied to theirs. As I see it. (I am not certain how a person can vote for someone and then turnaround and say "I take no responsibility for what that candidate does".)

If I may ask, How can they not be?

 

Well I think its pretty easy. There a plethora of reasons someone may lend ‘support’ to someone. Some moral, some fear, some multiple issues, some single issues, some because they see them as enabling their businesses, or their interests.
Many people dont vote because They morally stand behind this persons morals, they vote because they think it is in their own best interest to have that person making laws. Weve seen it with guys like Elon Musk who was kind of a leftist and now seems to be going to the right because he thinks its better for his business, it doesnt have anything to do with ‘morality’ of the right. It’s economics to him.
To say that they should have the same moral principles you do would mean that most or a majority of people are voting on the grounds of morality, which I think some people vote based on morality, but not all.

 

This literally let's everyone off the hook for who they vote for and what that candidate does. (doesn't seem logical)

So as not to beat a dead horse. I guess I'll agree to disagree.

 

I think it's logical to keep nuance and individuality in mind when talking to people about why they would vote for someone rather than say. This person is bad, you voted for them, you're bad too! Some people might be voting for what you would consider morally bad reasons, but not all. My aunt before she died was like an original feminist, and would not vote for anyone who was a man, she made it very clear every time politics came up, the only thing that influenced her voting was the sex of the person she was voting for (she was a college-educated person too) because to her putting more women in government was the only thing important when voting time came around. This doesn't let anyone off the hook, this says when speaking about an individual dig deeper than trying to define them based on a vote.

 

You have a vote. You use that vote.

My point is. What you seem to be saying to me is: "I take no responsibility for that vote." That does let everyone off the hook.

I am willing to agree to disagree. If you will, so will I. Other than that we sit here and circle jerk each other off all day.

 

I don't think that's what I'm saying at all.
If I disagree to the terms, does it become a battle of who can last longer...?

 

No. But, how do resolve when two people disagree? "Debate" all day? shouting match? guns at high noon?

It seems better to end things when the conversation comes a deadlock. Beyond that we are just wasting each others time.