US Presidential Election 2020

[FJAG]

Watching Melanie and so far this is one of the best speeches put out there. She`s expressing her sympathy for all those effected by COVID or who have lost a loved one; thanking all the health care workers; expressing how she has been moved by how Americans have come together in this crisis with kindness and compassion; acknowledge the 100 year anniversary of the 19th Amendment; discussed her immigrant past; thanked her parents for all they've done; acknowledged the military and first responders and their families; talked about "Be Best"; even addressed racial inequalities and diversity and addiction in an evenhanded way. There was a minimal amount of what Trump's administration has accomplished and how great a husband and president he is. Absolutely no denigration of the Democrats.

Throughout, she spoke very well in measured tones and with poise and passion. She was a breath of fresh air compared to the bile and shyte coming out of the mouths of most of the other speakers.

:cheers:

 

[Remius]

I have to agree.  She had a much better speech than most of the other speakers.

 

[fireman1867]

Day two of the RNC convention - where’s the party’s platform? 

 

[Remius]

Day two of the RNC convention - where’s the party’s platform?

No joke, they don’t have one. They decided not to have one this time. 

 

[tomahawk6]

I think the platform will be "electing a majority in the House".

 

[shawn5o]

We’ve most of us accidentally caught at least one. The level of discourse used to be pretty horrendous. It’s improved considerably.

Hi Brihard

Just wanted to say I'm kind of glad that I received a warning. I am getting better at communicating with others w/o resurting to slurs.

Cheers

 

[shawn5o]

Maybe if she had been properly quoted above it would make more sense:

https://nypost.com/2020/08/25/clinton-biden-should-not-concede-under-any-circumstances/

Sounds like a perfectly reasonable position to take in the circumstances that this dog and pony show will become.

:cheers:

Hi FJAG

Thanks for that NYP article. And watching that clip from Clinton - she's is very well spoken and clear in her message.

And thanks for basically pointing out to do better research on topics instead of relying on far right sources.

 

[kkwd]

You can take current events and compare them to this bit of history. Seems everything old is new again.

FDR gave his nomination acceptance speech from the White House during the DNC of 1940. OK, you got me, it was the day after the convention. So maybe it doesn't count. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1940_Democratic_National_Convention

Franklin D. Roosevelt, playing coy about his intentions to seek a third term, did not attend the convention himself, instead sending his wife Eleanor there on his behalf.

Franklin D. Roosevelt accepted his party's nomination after the convention had closed. Shortly after midnight Eastern time on July 19, 1940, Roosevelt delivered his acceptance speech from the White House in front of news radio microphones and newsreel cameras.

Later that morning, the American Pathé sent footage of his speech to New York City, where it was developed and had a portion aired on television at 3:30 Eastern time, making Roosevelt the first incumbent president to be shown on television accepting his party's nomination.

Five cabinet members of Barack Obama's administration gave speeches at the 2012 DNC.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Democratic_National_Convention

Tom Vilsack, U.S. Secretary of Agriculture
Arne Duncan, U.S. Secretary of Education
Eric Shinseki, U.S. Secretary of Veteran's Affairs and former Chief of Staff of the United States Army
Kathleen Sebelius, U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services and Former Governor of Kansas
Ken Salazar, U.S. Secretary of the Interior.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Karen Mills should be included on that list (her position was elevated to cabinet rank in Jan 2012).

 

[Brad Sallows]

>Day two of the RNC convention - where’s the party’s platform? 

They declined to adopt a new platform, and the 2016 platform remains in place.

"RESOLVED, That any motion to amend the 2016 Platform or to adopt a new platform, including any motion to suspend the procedures that will allow doing so, will be ruled out of order."

Whether or not you agree with their excuses (ie. being unable to convene in what they deem to be sufficient numbers), and regardless whether parts of it are rendered obsolete or ridiculous by four years of events, the platform is not "nothing".

To poke fun at their platform, find a copy of the 2016 one and bash away.

 

[stellarpanther]

I have to agree.  She had a much better speech than most of the other speakers.

I guess everything is subjective.  On a different forum I belong to there are 3 pages of post in which people are saying nice things about her but are saying it was painful to listen to both in tone and how she basically read word for word.

 

[Brad Sallows]

"subjective"

Most people focus on the speakers they like during their team's convention and the speakers they dislike during the other team's convention in order to reinforce what they want to believe about themselves and about the others.

 

[Donald H]

TYT with Noam Chomsky. Trump is worse than Hitler.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X6mAf_uPy-o

Chomsky doesn't take an extreme left position here, he advocates for Bernie Sanders' position and compares that to what is the existing status quo in nearly all modern and successful capitalist countries of the world.
And some, such as Mexico that aren't nearly as successful but already have health care for all.

It requires a half hour of your time to learn where Chomsky is coming from on this issue but I would suggest it's worth it to understand what's going so wrong in America under the Trump regime. Chomsky comes off as being middle of the road, moderate, and as unthreatening as sliced bread. This is the 'commie' threat that Americans are being warned about??

And so the answer to the question asked becomes a rather secondary issue here, in that it could be a bridge too far in extremism. but for those who consider that it's worth their time to hear this, they will most likely be prepared to comment on whether or not Trump is worse than Hitler.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Don't have to, and wouldn't waste the time on Chomsky.  Hitler started wars and programs that resulted in millions of deaths.  Don't be fucking stupid.

 

[QV]

And this is where some people are: Trump worse than Hitler (= Hitler > Trump).

Smmfh

 

[mariomike]

For reference to the discussion,

Godwin's Law

By Mike Godwin

The inventor of "Godwin's Law" about Hitler comparisons on the Internet says they're not always inappropriate.
https://web.archive.org/web/20170209163428/https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2015/12/14/sure-call-trump-a-nazi-just-make-sure-you-know-what-youre-talking-about/

 

[Brad Sallows]

So we move from intellectual and moral weakness to meta-intellectual and moral weakness. 

 

[Donald H]

Don't have to, and wouldn't waste the time on Chomsky.  Hitler started wars and programs that resulted in millions of deaths.  Don't be ******* stupid.

That point was covered by Chomsky too but I realized there would be a sort of Catch22 with this because a lot of people would never read or listen to Chomsky.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I've read Chomsky before.  Aside from being the patron saint of the "no true Scotsman" ("no serious person") fallacy, his moral equivalency schtick suffers from a lack of consideration of proportion.

 

[Donald H]

I've read Chomsky before.  Aside from being the patron saint of the "no true Scotsman" ("no serious person") fallacy, his moral equivalency schtick suffers from a lack of consideration of proportion.

With this particular one by utube, that isn't an issue Brad. Chomsky is no further left than Bernie Sanders, Canada, or any of the other leading democratic countries in the world. But I guess I'm just going to have to ask you to trust me on that.

When Chomsky suggests that Trump is worse than Hitler he's not suggesting that Trump has reached that point yet, and of course Trump hasn't. He seems to be suggesting that he will be. That is meant to address your concern on 'lack of consideration of proportion'.

No use belabouring the issue if nobody is going to look at it.