What does a BIDEN Presidency look like?

[Barrister]

And the evidence that was down to the Lincoln Project?

As always, it's hard to be sure exactly what motivated voters to change their vote.

For what it's worth, I think the Republican Voters Against Trump ads were likely much more effective, even if not as amusing.

[Berkut]

I was responding to Biscuit.  Sorry not clear.

No it was clear

I just chose to interpret the word of Biscuit and argue my interpretation

So they go low, we go lower?

I would say its more a matter of recognizing that the fight is sometimes not as high as we would like, and unless you want to just cede that space, someone has to be willing to fight in the trenches.

How do you feel about what the Lincoln Project was doing in the last election cycle?

You were the one who rightly argued that the Dems should not fight dirty just a few pages ago. 

If the Dems do what Otto suggests what would be the difference between the Dems and the GOP other than Trump playing for the other team.

No, that is not correct. I think the Dems should fight mean, not dirty.

Trump and the GOP simply make shit up and lie their asses off. They invent problems like caravans and rapist immigrants and double secret pedo rings and birth certificates and Biden-Ukraine, etc., etc.

I do not think the Dems should engage in that kind of bullshit.

I DO think the Dems should play nasty and mean though, when appropriate. Every time someone talks about Cruz, mention how he sucked up to Trump after Trump insulted his wife. Talk about Graham saying Biden was the most decent man in politics, and contrast that with his fawning over Trump who he once said would destroy the Republican Party.

Etc., etc.

[grumbler]

Talk about how Trump is terrified that his tax returns will get revealed to the public, and show what a sleazy businessman he's been.  Talk about His kids being on the board of the Trump Foundation when it was shut down due to illegal activity, and how his kids had to go to Grifter Reform School to avoid prison. 

And do all the attacks on the other Republicans.  The diehards won't be swayed, but nothing can sway them.  Convince those who can be swayed that the Republican Party is led by  greedy cowards who care only about money and power.  Because it's true.

[Tonitrus]

I am skeptical about how effective those are though (and they have been used, if perhaps in a muted way)...it seemed pretty common for many Trump supporters to tout the line "yeah, we know he's sleazy, but he'll appoint anti-abortion judges and build a wall, so it's all good".

[crazy canuck]

I was responding to Biscuit.  Sorry not clear.

No it was clear

I just chose to interpret the word of Biscuit and argue my interpretation

So they go low, we go lower?

I would say its more a matter of recognizing that the fight is sometimes not as high as we would like, and unless you want to just cede that space, someone has to be willing to fight in the trenches.

How do you feel about what the Lincoln Project was doing in the last election cycle?

You were the one who rightly argued that the Dems should not fight dirty just a few pages ago. 

If the Dems do what Otto suggests what would be the difference between the Dems and the GOP other than Trump playing for the other team.

No, that is not correct. I think the Dems should fight mean, not dirty.

Trump and the GOP simply make shit up and lie their asses off. They invent problems like caravans and rapist immigrants and double secret pedo rings and birth certificates and Biden-Ukraine, etc., etc.

I do not think the Dems should engage in that kind of bullshit.

I DO think the Dems should play nasty and mean though, when appropriate. Every time someone talks about Cruz, mention how he sucked up to Trump after Trump insulted his wife. Talk about Graham saying Biden was the most decent man in politics, and contrast that with his fawning over Trump who he once said would destroy the Republican Party.

Etc., etc.

So yes, I was correct.  You did say the Dems should not fight dirty   

Your example is not mean or dirty.  It is accurate and based on fact.  Otto was proposing character assassination based on false innuendo.  There is a world of difference and one that largely defines the Republicans.

[Berkut]

I am skeptical about how effective those are though (and they have been used, if perhaps in a muted way)...it seemed pretty common for many Trump supporters to tout the line "yeah, we know he's sleazy, but he'll appoint anti-abortion judges and build a wall, so it's all good".

You are imagining that if you cannot convince them all, it isn't worth doing. "Pretty common" means "most", not all. You don't have to convince them all.

[Tonitrus]

I am skeptical about how effective those are though (and they have been used, if perhaps in a muted way)...it seemed pretty common for many Trump supporters to tout the line "yeah, we know he's sleazy, but he'll appoint anti-abortion judges and build a wall, so it's all good".

You are imagining that if you cannot convince them all, it isn't worth doing. "Pretty common" means "most", not all. You don't have to convince them all.

I would not agree that I am imagining that...more musing about the difficulties that will be encountered.

I probably would agree it is worth doing...and still be disappointed in my fellow citizens that thinks the ends justify the means.

[Admiral Yi]

Is the slam on Jim Jordan a good one?  Honest question, I know nothing about it.

[Caliga]

I am not quite prepared to take AOC seriously yet but I'm glad to see a fellow BU alum doing so well.

[crazy canuck]

I am not quite prepared to take AOC seriously yet but I'm glad to see a fellow BU alum doing so well.

Why wouldn't you?

[Caliga]

She's too young and I don't like young people.

[Jacob]

Is the slam on Jim Jordan a good one?  Honest question, I know nothing about it.

As I understand it, he's been protecting child molestors.

Haven't dug into it too carefully though. Someone probably should.

[Sheilbh]

Is the slam on Jim Jordan a good one?  Honest question, I know nothing about it.

I think it's reasonable. He was a coach for 8 years. In all of that time the team doctor was sexually abusing athletes - largely every injury needing a genital or anal exam. The doctor also showered with them. I believe a number of former wrestlers have said that Jordan was aware. For example his locker was next to the doctor's and Jordan apparently used to joke that he'd kill the doctor if he tried anything on him.

The year after Jordan left, the doctor was placed on administrative leave following a number of complaints. Jordan's never cooperated with any of the various investigations into the abuse.

It's possible he didn't know - but I'd wonder if that was wilful blindness. I think the various former wrestlers are more credible.

[Berkut]

Is the slam on Jim Jordan a good one?  Honest question, I know nothing about it.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/06/politics/jordan-osu-wrestlers-strauss-invs/index.html

Team doctor was abusive for years. Multiple athletes have come forward about it, and many have specifically said that Jordan made comments himself about the doctor, or was present when athletes complained.

It's certainly possibly that Jordan somehow worked with a doctor who abused athletes something like over 150 times, many of whom complained, and plenty who said that it was an open secret that the doctor was a total creep, and somehow he just never noticed or heard anything that many, many of his athletes said was common knowledge, and it is possible that those who recall specific comments made in his presence of even by him are all lying for reasonreasonsreasons.

It doesn't seem likely though. I think this is more than fair game.

[crazy canuck]

She's too young and I don't like young people.

Fair.  But let me tell you something, once my kids reached a certain age and I realized how much better they understand the world than people my age and older, my view on the wisdom of age changed markedly.