What Would It Take for You to Vote for Biden?

[New haven america]

Ask yourself this; How are you hurt by gays getting married?

Since when is personal inconvenience or injury a valid reason to oppose something? I oppose gay marriage on principle, not out of self interest.

One's opposition to or support of any side of any political issue ought to be out of concern for the public good, not desire for personal gain.

The problem is is that your not arguing that LGBT stuff should be banned or criminalized based on the public good, your arguing that it should be so based on personal interest and evidently failing at that bit.

[Fahran]

No, that is what happened.

It's an ideological narrative masquerading as history that probably hasn't been well contemplated or substantiated by primary sources.

And if you think that is "unnuanced" and yet that constitutional literalism bullshit some how isn't, then you are a just a plain hypocrite. Constitutional literalism fails to take into account the nuance of TODAY, as WELL as the historical context, of which I just described and merely SUMS up why that amendment is obsolete.

I wasn't resorting to constitutional literalism. I was resorting to precedents established by the SCOTUS, the supreme judicial body of the United States which has been responsible for interpreting the Constitution for hundreds of years. If we're going to discuss the intentions of the Founders, many of whom had some very liberal attitudes towards citizens rising up against the state, it's probably worthwhile to examine the weapons available at the time of the Revolution and the approximate structure and function of militias in the Colonies, especially in the Appalachian Mountains and through to the immediate aftermath of the Civil War. The modern stance on gun control and regulation has a couple of precedents. One was a desire to disarm black citizens and veterans in the Jim Crow South by white supremacist governments and paramilitary terrorist organizations. Second, and probably more favorable to you, was the advent of violent clashes between organized crime syndicates during the Prohibition Era.

Plus, I don't even KNOW how they came to such a decision under literalism either; the exact words of the amendment are "A well-regulated [take particular note of that bit] militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people [this word is a collective, and goes hand-in-hand with the idea of the MILITIA from the previous clause, which we DON'T HAVE ANYMORE] to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

If you would like to learn, I'd recommend reading the decision on the matter instead of just assuming legal scholars who do this as their job are wrong and that you're right.

Nowhere does that use, or even IMPLY the word "individual(s)", and the Founders all knew that, because the majority of them distrusted standing armies. They intended to have a militial defense force and we know this.

Again, I don't think you understand the language or the historical/cultural context here.

And once that was abolished, we had other, less savory reasons for keeping it around (slavery, Manifest destiny, etc.) despite the fact it technically no longer applied, that could still be loosely applied to the COLLECTIVE term "people" used in the amendment in that they benefited the nation as a whole in ways. But then we decided slavery was evil, had the Civil War, killed all almost the natives, and reached the Pacific.

Literally NO valid reason that applies to ANY of the direct language exist that would justify keeping it around anymore. NONE. Even if you stick to literalism.

The Founders wanted a well-armed citizenry and gave us an amendment that allowed for a legally sanctioned well-armed citizenry? And nobody has ever been convincing enough to get us to repeal it because the arguments against a well-armed citizenry suck?

Plus, you conveniently ignore my point about the MODERN nuance of the Amendment and that the government has a constitutional duty to provide for the common defense. And like it or not, the epidemice of gun violence threatens EVERY American.

Gun violence doesn't actually threaten most Americans. That's why the only time we seeing a concerted push to restrict firearms or ammunition is immediately after a mass shooting of middle-class white people and that, in the absence of a knee-jerk reaction that avoids conversation and debate, the proposed legislation almost always fails or elicits a strong negative reaction from poor rural folks in particular.

[Alcala-Cordel]

Seems to me that the thread has drifted off course, from talking about what might induce you to vote for the former vice-president to an argument about LGBT+ rights and tolerance. Back on topic, please.

Well, LGBT issues are a pretty big issue when it comes to Biden as he almost singlehandedly turned the Dems from an Anti-LGBT party to a party that fights for LGBT rights and protections over the course of only ~4 years starting in 2005.

Are you serously giving Biden credit for that and not the social movement in the voterbase?

[The Holy Mercurian Empire]

Since when is personal inconvenience or injury a valid reason to oppose something? I oppose gay marriage on principle, not out of self interest.

One's opposition to or support of any side of any political issue ought to be out of concern for the public good, not desire for personal gain.

The problem is you are not about public good nor is it based on a valid principle. It’s selfish interest. Embrace it; don’t deny it.

Finally, this is not the place for this talk. Gay marriage has had a bazillion threads. Jump in on the LGBT thread if you feel the need to save people.

If I have nothing to gain from it, how can it possibly be out of self interest?

In any case, if you know any active thread where this conversation would be "on topic," provide a link to one, and we can take this discussion there.

[Fahran]

The problem is is that your not arguing that LGBT stuff should be banned or criminalized based on the public good, your arguing that it should be so based on personal interest and evidently failing at that bit.

If the poster in question interprets adherence to Christian morality as a public good, then it goes well beyond being motivated by personal interest. Mind you, I don't agree with the poster in question but he's not the one making arguments based on anyone's particular personal interests. I imagine his position is more of a moralizing one.

[New haven america]

Well, LGBT issues are a pretty big issue when it comes to Biden as he almost singlehandedly turned the Dems from an Anti-LGBT party to a party that fights for LGBT rights and protections over the course of only ~4 years starting in 2005.

Are you serously giving Biden credit for that and not the social movement in the voterbase?

Yes, because he helped start the social movement and give pro-LGBT dems and their positions the spotlight.

[Alcala-Cordel]

The problem is you are not about public good nor is it based on a valid principle. It’s selfish interest. Embrace it; don’t deny it.

Finally, this is not the place for this talk. Gay marriage has had a bazillion threads. Jump in on the LGBT thread if you feel the need to save people.

If I have nothing to gain from it, how can it possibly be out of self interest?

In any case, if you know any active thread where this conversation would be "on topic," provide a link to one, and we can take this discussion there.

Hypocrite moment

I'm gonna stop feeding you as we really need to get this thread back on track. Stop harassing LGBT people with your false righteousness. Also please telegram me the list of blasphemies so I can do some owo

[Alcala-Cordel]

Are you serously giving Biden credit for that and not the social movement in the voterbase?

Yes, because he helped start the social movement and give pro-LGBT dems and their positions the spotlight.

I don't know how to respond to this other than by saying he didn't do that and there's no evidence to prove he did

[Major-Tom]

Are you serously giving Biden credit for that and not the social movement in the voterbase?

Yes, because he helped start the social movement and give pro-LGBT dems and their positions the spotlight.

Like most Senate Democrats, he evolved on the issue, going from supporting DOMA and Don't Ask Don't Tell to support of "Civil Unions" followed by accepting same-sex marriage. Whether or not that's up for criticism is always a debatable topic, but it's disingenuous at best to suggest that he helped start the social movement when his crowning achievement in that capacity was expressing his support a few months before Obama was scheduled to.

In other words, his gaffe forced a Presidential pivot. Certainly not a bad thing, but it doesn't make him some LGBT hero.

[New haven america]

Yes, because he helped start the social movement and give pro-LGBT dems and their positions the spotlight.

I don't know how to respond to this other than by saying he didn't do that and there's no evidence to prove he did

Joe was the first person in government to openly come out in support of LGBT rights and spent most of his time post-2005 pre-2008 working with LGBT groups and pro-LGBT politicians.

So no, you're wrong and seemingly blinded by the idea that people can change or evolve over time.

[Fahran]

I don't know how to respond other by saying he didn't do that and there's no evidence to prove he did

Biden tested the waters on the matter of gay marriage before Obama shifted to a pro-marriage equality position and allegedly pushed Obama to reevaluate his position.

Source

[Alcala-Cordel]

I don't know how to respond to this other than by saying he didn't do that and there's no evidence to prove he did

Joe was the first person in government to openly come out in support of LGBT rights and spent most of his time post-2005 pre-2008 working with LGBT groups and pro-LGBT politicians.

So no, you're wrong and seemingly blinded by the idea that people can change or evolve over time.

And yoi thino this warmonger really cares? It's just politically convenient for him.

[South Odreria 2]

Did you support continuing the Bosnian genocide?

What's with you asking bait questions? Are you a professional troll looking forwards to getting a reaction from me?

Well, you claimed that ending it was somehow an evil act.

[Picairn]

Too many sources and too little time, actually. And yes, you could indeed do your own research. Heaven knows I researched Biden. That's how I learned about his support for the '94 crime bill, his (alleged) assault on Tara Reade, his support for war after war, his support for usury and predatory banking practices, and his "I have zero empathy for millennials" + "nothing will fundamentally change".

You may think it is very clever to keep asking for sources, but progressives are not going to be impressed with your dissection of the material they quote, if they do so at all. We are not asking for your votes, you are asking for ours. That puts the onus on you, to convince us. Not the other way around.

Cue the obligatory reply of "see, they have no proof" and "why do we even bother" - but really, all you are doing is pushing us away by denying the very dynamic of this conversation. See my earlier replies: there is a danger to viewing yourselves as the benevolent and overendulging benefactors of progressives, when actually 5% of your base are ready to rebel, and 25% are still furious.

There is a saying that arguing with a cult is very tiresome and never rewarding. Like I said: there is a schism going on and your cult is - I see that clearly now - never going to be mine anymore. So you convicned me: I will not vote for Biden (nor for Trump) even if they ask Bernie to be their VP. The two-party system must be destroyed. Down with this DNC cult.

The division over the 1994 crime bill is the living proof of Americans' short memory. In the 80s and early 90s the crime rate tripled and the crack cocaine epidemic was rapidly destroying black communities. The 1994 crime bill was a compromise that everyone could live with, with funding for crime prevention and social programs by Democrats, and increased police funding and sentences by Republicans. It was very popular back then to black people, with the endorsement of 10 African American mayors in the big cities and 2/3rds of the Black Congressional Caucus voted for it. Jim Clyburn, a black Senator in the Senate, said this: "In 1994, I voted for the crime bill! What did we do? We took mandatory minimums off of first-time offenders. We put in $3 billion for prevention programs. We put 100,000 cops on the street,"

Clyburn says he thinks the crime bill divide is more with white people. "That's exactly right. That is not real. Not with black people," Clyburn said, stressing there is a different conversation inside the black community. A member of the African Methodist Episcopal church, another epicenter of South Carolina Democratic politics, Clyburn said there is a different conversation about Biden happening in those corners. "They're very excited about Joe Biden, most of them know what I just shared with you about the crime bill, but they don't have a megaphone," he said. "I mean y'all got all the print. Y'all write this stuff. All they can do is talk about it among themselves. That's why Joe Biden is running 76% among them and so much doubt among y'all."

Aside from that, Americans have forgotten how violent the cities were in early 90s. According to FBI statistics, against the backdrop of expanding crack use, the violent-crime rate increased by over 25 percent just from 1980 through 1992. By the early 1990s, the murder rate in the nation’s largest cities peaked at over 30 per 100,000 residents; in New York City alone, 2,245 people were murdered in 1990. This violence most heavily afflicted African American, Hispanic, and low-income communities. So destabilizing were these waves that in late 1993 a task force of mayors (chaired by Wellington Webb, the black mayor of Denver) urged Clinton to mount an “all-out” federal effort against “the continuing epidemic of violent crime in our cities.”

Sources: Here and here.

Not to mention, Bernie Sanders voted for it. He voted for because of the Violence Against Women Act and the assault weapons ban, but he enabled it regardless. The crime bill was not perfect, but it was the best deterrent back then against the rising tide of crime.

And the effects were phenomenal. Yes, incarceration rates exploded, but so was the decline in crime. Cities like Detroit are now finally recovering from the ruin. It's quite a feat the more you think about it.

Regarding cults, you progressives see Bernie as the messiah and dismissed any criticisms against him, calling his critics "tool of the establishment". Quite a cult to me.

[New Vedan]

I really dont think theres anyway that's gonna happen. Biden is yet another terrible canidate the DNC has forced everyone so that they could prevent Bernie Sanders from winning the primary. He needs to either drop out or be forced out if the Democrats want to have 4 more years of Trump.

[Picairn]

The reality is you, Wariaku, and Picairn are threadjacking and appear to be utterly incapable of making sense.

We are not the ones asking troll questions.

Did you support continuing the Bosnian genocide?

Hmmm...

[New haven america]

Joe was the first person in government to openly come out in support of LGBT rights and spent most of his time post-2005 pre-2008 working with LGBT groups and pro-LGBT politicians.

So no, you're wrong and seemingly blinded by the idea that people can change or evolve over time.

And yoi thino this warmonger really cares? It's just politically convenient for him.

If he didn't care then why did he spend the past 15+ years being a champion for LGBT rights and again almost singlehandedly caused the Dems LGBT stance to shift towards the positive?

Again, blinded to change.

[Picairn]

Well, you claimed that ending it was somehow an evil act.

Putting words in my mouth, I see. Carry on.

[South Odreria 2]

Well, you claimed that ending it was somehow an evil act.

Putting words in my mouth, I see. Carry on.

Bernard and everybody else was right to end the genocide. Get over it.

[Picairn]

Bernard and everybody else was right to end the genocide. Get over it.

After you have got over the fact that I never said such things. Strawman time.

[South Odreria 2]

Besides, the Progressives' messiah Bernie voted for war several times. He voted to kill white kids in Kosovo and Bosnia 1999, and voted for post-9/11 military authorization against terrorism.

Bernard and everybody else was right to end the genocide. Get over it.

[Picairn]

And? Where did I say stopping the Bosnian genocide is a bad thing?

[Fahran]

Did you support continuing the Bosnian genocide?

This probably isn't a fair question. It's a bit like asking "Do you support denying girls an education?" when someone argues against America continuing the War on Terror in places like Afghanistan and Nigeria. Any military intervention is going to contribute to increased loss of life and impositions on the political culture and outcomes of militarily weaker communities, often while not generating any long-lasting good will. Our intervention in the Yugoslav brouhaha has allowed certain nations to effectively engage in ethnic cleansing despite one of our stated goals being to halt ethnic cleansing.

[South Odreria 2]

Did you support continuing the Bosnian genocide?

This probably isn't a fair question. It's a bit like asking "Do you support denying girls an education?" when someone argues against America continuing the War on Terror in places like Afghanistan and Nigeria. Any military intervention is going to contribute to increased loss of life and impositions on the political culture and outcomes of militarily weaker communities. Our intervention in the Yugoslav brouhaha has allowed certain nations to effectively engage in ethnic cleansing despite one of our stated goals being to halt ethnic cleansing.

Sure we screwed some stuff up, but the place was a lot better off afterwards. And genocide is not equivalent with general unfairness and human rights abuse, not now, not ever.

[Picairn]

This probably isn't a fair question. It's a bit like asking "Do you support denying girls an education?" when someone argues against America continuing the War on Terror in places like Afghanistan and Nigeria. Any military intervention is going to contribute to increased loss of life and impositions on the political culture and outcomes of militarily weaker communities, often while not generating any long-lasting good will. Our intervention in the Yugoslav brouhaha has allowed certain nations to effectively engage in ethnic cleansing despite one of our stated goals being to halt ethnic cleansing.

It's a loaded question, that's for sure. In the context of the conversation I used the evidence to dispel the myth that Bernie Sanders was a full-blown pacifist compared to Biden, since he voted for war several times. Whether those wars are just or not is up to the nature and intent of each individual one, and each of which is a different topic.