ImageImageImageImageImage

2020 Presidential Election (All Serious POVs Welcome)

Moderators: GONYK, K-DOT, Deeeez Knicks, Capn'O, Thugger HBC, j4remi, Jeff Van Gully, mrpoetryNmotion, mpharris36, NoLayupRule, King of Canada

Who are you voting for?

Donald Trump
28
27%
Joe Biden
63
61%
Howie Hawkins
4
4%
Jo Jorgensen
3
3%
Kanye West
6
6%
 
Total votes: 104

User avatar
Fury
Knicks Forum Mock Draft Co-Champ
Posts: 20,217
And1: 10,523
Joined: Mar 07, 2007
       

Re: 2020 Presidential Election (All Serious POVs Welcome) 

Post#1201 » by Fury » Wed Sep 16, 2020 6:47 pm

mpharris36 wrote:
Fury wrote:
mpharris36 wrote:
A covid response

like this?



Damn even for NY Cuomo and de Blasio were telling people in early march to not effect your day to day lives and it wasn't that series and they were encouraging downplaying the virus.

February 6 - Biden Public Health Advisory Committee member Dr. Irwin Redlener said, “Yes, there is uncertainty, and the headlines are dramatic. But right now, the chances of any of us or anyone we know ever getting a severe, potentially lethal form of the Wuhan virus is negligible.”

February 11 - Top Biden advisor Ron Klain said, “A serious epidemic – now, the coronavirus may be that, it may not be that. The evidence suggests it's probably not that.”

February 20 - Biden Public Health Advisory Committee member Dr. Zeke Emanuel said, “many of the experts are saying, well the warm weather is going to come and, just like with the flu, the coronavirus is going to go down and may move into the Southern Hemisphere.”

This was all after the travel restrictions from china on Jan 31st.

Im not going to play scientist because I'm not one but there are plenty of theories behind it and it was a new virus that simply even the experts didn't know what to expect with this potential man mad virus. I'm sure a lot of things could have been done differently I'm not naive but this idea that it could have easily been new virus could have been handled differently with the little information we received from China on the spread is a bit ridiculous to me.


You do know you're allowed to make mistakes and turn things around, right? Like Cuomo did. Not double down like Trump continues to do.

This is pathetic. And it's hilarious you defend it like a sycophant.

The travel restrictions didn't stop ****. People still came over from China and people still came over from Europe. Which is why we got the hardest hit. But then we listened to the science and turned things around. What the **** has Trump done other than attack science and instigate ****? Please, tell me what he's done? Because this country, compared to others, is near the bottom with their response.

Joke response from a joke republican.


Double down like what? Trying to open the country back up? You do understand we also have an economy and that can't completely go in the **** right? Its not simply just stay home forever and this will be fixed. People need to work, people need to make money. Businesses being shut down how do they survive? To say anyone had the perfect response would just be crazy with how unknown it was.

You can't sit here and bang deficit deficit deficit and then say he is doubling down and trying to restart the economy.

And I never said "travel ban" I said travel restriction...could you imagine the response if he banned travel? They were calling him xenophobic for a restriction...could you imagine if he just shut other people out? I'm sure that would have went over well.

Also I think I have been pretty civil to you and we have know each other for a long time on this forum to respect one another. So I find it pretty disingenuous that you can't be tolerant of someone else when they are trying to be tolerant of you to at least not start the name calling.


Trump literally said travel ban. You can play semantics all you want.

I'm done with civility with Trump supporters because giving ya'll a platform got us into this mess in the first place. You can not be a rational human being and support this man. Look at the **** you're saying. Pick a little thing here and there, a sprinkle of WHATABOUTISM, make ridiculous rationalizations and ignore the rest of the points. That's what Trump has reduced you to. You're a joke, dude.
User avatar
mpharris36
Forum Mod - Knicks
Forum Mod - Knicks
Posts: 70,509
And1: 43,454
Joined: Nov 03, 2010
     

Re: 2020 Presidential Election (All Serious POVs Welcome) 

Post#1202 » by mpharris36 » Wed Sep 16, 2020 6:56 pm

HarthorneWingo wrote:
mpharris36 wrote:
Fury wrote:
jfc

Trump is a narcissist con-man. Stop trying to rationalize his bull. This has nothing to do with socialist ideas or conservative ideals (that went out the window once Trump took over the party). This is straight up a joke that Trump is a serious candidate in anyone's eyes. And if you think he is, or you continue to rationalize, then you're peddling the destruction of this country. Trump is a piece of **** ****, you don't need to support him.


Is he an ****? Sure he is. You will get no disagreement from me there. Trump got into office because people were tired of pandering career politicians that did nothing when they got into office. But you and I have a total different understanding of what the destruction of the country looks like.


What'd you think of Bernie?


I think he is generally a nice person. Seems sincere and his goal for every person in the country to have a minimum standard living (income, housing, healthcare education) is great in theory. I just don't know how you would pay for it by just taxing the super rich because they can move. Its the people that do pretty well for themselves that support a family on one income where I would be taking a hit the numbers just don't add up.

I personally just prefer to have the least amount of gov't control as possible. I would like to pick my own path rather then someone pick it for me. Thats just a personal preference. But to have that plan work you would have to believe ever single person would do there part to have a Utopian society where everyone helps out. I think you and I both know there are people that would not plan on working or doing there part and just live off the standardized living from the gov't. You might have a better outlook on people then I do but I just don't see that as a feasible long term goal. I'm not suggesting democratic socials is going to turn to communism but you can understand some peoples potential fear.

if there ends up being no financial incentive for someone to be a doctor, or surgeon, or top scientist or someone to create the new great idea because he/she wont be able to be rewarded for that in a true capitalistic market you have to ask yourself what incentive would there be?

Though I am never one to fault someone for supporting him. He has a backbone at least and you know what he believes in. I just don't support the ideas personally.
BAF Spurs:

ROSTER
1. Frank Ntilikina- $170/2 years
2. Michael Porter Jr.- $61/5 years
3. Terence Davis- $2/4 years
4. Chris Boucher- $1/3 years

9 lottery picks in the 2020 draft
User avatar
K-DOT
Forum Mod - Knicks
Forum Mod - Knicks
Posts: 13,131
And1: 18,270
Joined: Nov 25, 2016
         

Re: 2020 Presidential Election (All Serious POVs Welcome) 

Post#1203 » by K-DOT » Wed Sep 16, 2020 6:57 pm

mpharris36 wrote:
K-DOT wrote:I don't get why Republicans act like if you're wrong about something but then change your mind when new evidence comes to light, that's a bad thing, because that's literally the foundation of science

Lot of people in charge were wrong, and we've suffered as a result. But only one person in charge has continually downplayed everything and done literally nothing when presented with evidence the way he was going was wrong, and he's the president.

Also, the "travel ban" on China was an absolute joke of a policy that at best gave us a few weeks to prepare. In a twist no one could see coming, we did nothing to prepare, so those few weeks we got were pointless. And Donald Trump is still a racist stoking racial tensions.


thats why I called it restrictions and not a ban because I didn't think it was harsh enough (see trump can do something wrong). But he was literally destroyed for a light restriction, saying he was racist and xenophobic. I'm sure we all could have imagined the response if he literally banned people from the country on Jan 31st when the rest of the country for the next two months was saying its not that bad.

It was racist and xenophobic because that's all he did, which is the part that you're ignoring

If he did that in conjunction with ramping up medical production and using that time gained to prepare as well as restricting people from Europe, it wouldn't've been racist or xenophobic, it would've been justifiable as giving us time to prepare. We were going to get the virus no matter how strict the ban was, yet you're acting like him doing only that just harsher would've been a good response

And you still ignore the point that the initial response by the Dems was bad, but they fixed their mistakes and will admit they were wrong. Trump won't do that, which is what he's getting criticized for. What you're doing is creating a strawman, where you're misrepresenting the issues from the Dems so you can look reasonable and moderate, but it's a rhetorical fallacy. Then you ask us to defend positions we have never taken while deflecting any criticism of Trump as simply partisan attacks and offer mild criticism of him in order to seem fair and balanced when you're not even really criticizing him, just saying you agree with his ideas just wish he went further.
BAF Lakers:

Darius Garland/Carsen Edwards
Eric Gordon/Avery Bradley
Cam Johnson/Keldon Johnson
Obi Toppin/Darius Bazley
Goga Bitadze/Bol Bol

rip Josh Jackson's contract
User avatar
mpharris36
Forum Mod - Knicks
Forum Mod - Knicks
Posts: 70,509
And1: 43,454
Joined: Nov 03, 2010
     

Re: 2020 Presidential Election (All Serious POVs Welcome) 

Post#1204 » by mpharris36 » Wed Sep 16, 2020 6:57 pm

Fury wrote:
mpharris36 wrote:
Fury wrote:
You do know you're allowed to make mistakes and turn things around, right? Like Cuomo did. Not double down like Trump continues to do.

This is pathetic. And it's hilarious you defend it like a sycophant.

The travel restrictions didn't stop ****. People still came over from China and people still came over from Europe. Which is why we got the hardest hit. But then we listened to the science and turned things around. What the **** has Trump done other than attack science and instigate ****? Please, tell me what he's done? Because this country, compared to others, is near the bottom with their response.

Joke response from a joke republican.


Double down like what? Trying to open the country back up? You do understand we also have an economy and that can't completely go in the **** right? Its not simply just stay home forever and this will be fixed. People need to work, people need to make money. Businesses being shut down how do they survive? To say anyone had the perfect response would just be crazy with how unknown it was.

You can't sit here and bang deficit deficit deficit and then say he is doubling down and trying to restart the economy.

And I never said "travel ban" I said travel restriction...could you imagine the response if he banned travel? They were calling him xenophobic for a restriction...could you imagine if he just shut other people out? I'm sure that would have went over well.

Also I think I have been pretty civil to you and we have know each other for a long time on this forum to respect one another. So I find it pretty disingenuous that you can't be tolerant of someone else when they are trying to be tolerant of you to at least not start the name calling.


Trump literally said travel ban. You can play semantics all you want.

I'm done with civility with Trump supporters because giving ya'll a platform got us into this mess in the first place. You can not be a rational human being and support this man. Look at the **** you're saying. Pick a little thing here and there, a sprinkle of WHATABOUTISM, make ridiculous rationalizations and ignore the rest of the points. That's what Trump has reduced you to. You're a joke, dude.



thank your for your tolerance
BAF Spurs:

ROSTER
1. Frank Ntilikina- $170/2 years
2. Michael Porter Jr.- $61/5 years
3. Terence Davis- $2/4 years
4. Chris Boucher- $1/3 years

9 lottery picks in the 2020 draft
User avatar
Fury
Knicks Forum Mock Draft Co-Champ
Posts: 20,217
And1: 10,523
Joined: Mar 07, 2007
       

Re: 2020 Presidential Election (All Serious POVs Welcome) 

Post#1205 » by Fury » Wed Sep 16, 2020 7:03 pm

mpharris36 wrote:
Fury wrote:
mpharris36 wrote:
Double down like what? Trying to open the country back up? You do understand we also have an economy and that can't completely go in the **** right? Its not simply just stay home forever and this will be fixed. People need to work, people need to make money. Businesses being shut down how do they survive? To say anyone had the perfect response would just be crazy with how unknown it was.

You can't sit here and bang deficit deficit deficit and then say he is doubling down and trying to restart the economy.

And I never said "travel ban" I said travel restriction...could you imagine the response if he banned travel? They were calling him xenophobic for a restriction...could you imagine if he just shut other people out? I'm sure that would have went over well.

Also I think I have been pretty civil to you and we have know each other for a long time on this forum to respect one another. So I find it pretty disingenuous that you can't be tolerant of someone else when they are trying to be tolerant of you to at least not start the name calling.


Trump literally said travel ban. You can play semantics all you want.

I'm done with civility with Trump supporters because giving ya'll a platform got us into this mess in the first place. You can not be a rational human being and support this man. Look at the **** you're saying. Pick a little thing here and there, a sprinkle of WHATABOUTISM, make ridiculous rationalizations and ignore the rest of the points. That's what Trump has reduced you to. You're a joke, dude.



thank your for your tolerance


?
User avatar
Fury
Knicks Forum Mock Draft Co-Champ
Posts: 20,217
And1: 10,523
Joined: Mar 07, 2007
       

Re: 2020 Presidential Election (All Serious POVs Welcome) 

Post#1206 » by Fury » Wed Sep 16, 2020 7:04 pm

K-DOT wrote:
mpharris36 wrote:
K-DOT wrote:I don't get why Republicans act like if you're wrong about something but then change your mind when new evidence comes to light, that's a bad thing, because that's literally the foundation of science

Lot of people in charge were wrong, and we've suffered as a result. But only one person in charge has continually downplayed everything and done literally nothing when presented with evidence the way he was going was wrong, and he's the president.

Also, the "travel ban" on China was an absolute joke of a policy that at best gave us a few weeks to prepare. In a twist no one could see coming, we did nothing to prepare, so those few weeks we got were pointless. And Donald Trump is still a racist stoking racial tensions.


thats why I called it restrictions and not a ban because I didn't think it was harsh enough (see trump can do something wrong). But he was literally destroyed for a light restriction, saying he was racist and xenophobic. I'm sure we all could have imagined the response if he literally banned people from the country on Jan 31st when the rest of the country for the next two months was saying its not that bad.

It was racist and xenophobic because that's all he did, which is the part that you're ignoring

If he did that in conjunction with ramping up medical production and using that time gained to prepare as well as restricting people from Europe, it wouldn't've been racist or xenophobic, it would've been justifiable as giving us time to prepare. We were going to get the virus no matter how strict the ban was, yet you're acting like him doing only that just harsher would've been a good response

And you still ignore the point that the initial response by the Dems was bad, but they fixed their mistakes and will admit they were wrong. Trump won't do that, which is what he's getting criticized for. What you're doing is creating a strawman, where you're misrepresenting the issues from the Dems so you can look reasonable and moderate, but it's a rhetorical fallacy. Then you ask us to defend positions we have never taken while deflecting any criticism of Trump as simply partisan attacks and offer mild criticism of him in order to seem fair and balanced when you're not even really criticizing him, just saying you agree with his ideas just wish he went further.


+1000000000
User avatar
mpharris36
Forum Mod - Knicks
Forum Mod - Knicks
Posts: 70,509
And1: 43,454
Joined: Nov 03, 2010
     

Re: 2020 Presidential Election (All Serious POVs Welcome) 

Post#1207 » by mpharris36 » Wed Sep 16, 2020 7:07 pm

K-DOT wrote:
mpharris36 wrote:
K-DOT wrote:I don't get why Republicans act like if you're wrong about something but then change your mind when new evidence comes to light, that's a bad thing, because that's literally the foundation of science

Lot of people in charge were wrong, and we've suffered as a result. But only one person in charge has continually downplayed everything and done literally nothing when presented with evidence the way he was going was wrong, and he's the president.

Also, the "travel ban" on China was an absolute joke of a policy that at best gave us a few weeks to prepare. In a twist no one could see coming, we did nothing to prepare, so those few weeks we got were pointless. And Donald Trump is still a racist stoking racial tensions.


thats why I called it restrictions and not a ban because I didn't think it was harsh enough (see trump can do something wrong). But he was literally destroyed for a light restriction, saying he was racist and xenophobic. I'm sure we all could have imagined the response if he literally banned people from the country on Jan 31st when the rest of the country for the next two months was saying its not that bad.

It was racist and xenophobic because that's all he did, which is the part that you're ignoring

If he did that in conjunction with ramping up medical production and using that time gained to prepare as well as restricting people from Europe, it wouldn't've been racist or xenophobic, it would've been justifiable as giving us time to prepare. We were going to get the virus no matter how strict the ban was, yet you're acting like him doing only that just harsher would've been a good response

And you still ignore the point that the initial response by the Dems was bad, but they fixed their mistakes and will admit they were wrong. Trump won't do that, which is what he's getting criticized for. What you're doing is creating a strawman, where you're misrepresenting the issues from the Dems so you can look reasonable and moderate, but it's a rhetorical fallacy. Then you ask us to defend positions we have never taken while deflecting any criticism of Trump as simply partisan attacks and offer mild criticism of him in order to seem fair and balanced when you're not even really criticizing him, just saying you agree with his ideas just wish he went further.


To be fair Europe was working with the US in terms of sharing information and data. You can understand being skeptical of a country where the virus started yet they weren't forthright with any information, no?

Also a question, are we judging covid response by death or death rate? Just trying to be on the same page because if the argument is 196k deaths. While states like TX and FL were destroyed for there covid responses and Cuomo asking for praise for his response the death rates aren't even comparable to a state like NY and NJ.
BAF Spurs:

ROSTER
1. Frank Ntilikina- $170/2 years
2. Michael Porter Jr.- $61/5 years
3. Terence Davis- $2/4 years
4. Chris Boucher- $1/3 years

9 lottery picks in the 2020 draft
User avatar
mpharris36
Forum Mod - Knicks
Forum Mod - Knicks
Posts: 70,509
And1: 43,454
Joined: Nov 03, 2010
     

Re: 2020 Presidential Election (All Serious POVs Welcome) 

Post#1208 » by mpharris36 » Wed Sep 16, 2020 7:08 pm

Fury wrote:
mpharris36 wrote:
Fury wrote:
Trump literally said travel ban. You can play semantics all you want.

I'm done with civility with Trump supporters because giving ya'll a platform got us into this mess in the first place. You can not be a rational human being and support this man. Look at the **** you're saying. Pick a little thing here and there, a sprinkle of WHATABOUTISM, make ridiculous rationalizations and ignore the rest of the points. That's what Trump has reduced you to. You're a joke, dude.



thank your for your tolerance


?

just trying to bring some levity :dontknow: :lol:
BAF Spurs:

ROSTER
1. Frank Ntilikina- $170/2 years
2. Michael Porter Jr.- $61/5 years
3. Terence Davis- $2/4 years
4. Chris Boucher- $1/3 years

9 lottery picks in the 2020 draft
User avatar
K-DOT
Forum Mod - Knicks
Forum Mod - Knicks
Posts: 13,131
And1: 18,270
Joined: Nov 25, 2016
         

Re: 2020 Presidential Election (All Serious POVs Welcome) 

Post#1209 » by K-DOT » Wed Sep 16, 2020 7:14 pm

mpharris36 wrote:
K-DOT wrote:
mpharris36 wrote:
thats why I called it restrictions and not a ban because I didn't think it was harsh enough (see trump can do something wrong). But he was literally destroyed for a light restriction, saying he was racist and xenophobic. I'm sure we all could have imagined the response if he literally banned people from the country on Jan 31st when the rest of the country for the next two months was saying its not that bad.

It was racist and xenophobic because that's all he did, which is the part that you're ignoring

If he did that in conjunction with ramping up medical production and using that time gained to prepare as well as restricting people from Europe, it wouldn't've been racist or xenophobic, it would've been justifiable as giving us time to prepare. We were going to get the virus no matter how strict the ban was, yet you're acting like him doing only that just harsher would've been a good response

And you still ignore the point that the initial response by the Dems was bad, but they fixed their mistakes and will admit they were wrong. Trump won't do that, which is what he's getting criticized for. What you're doing is creating a strawman, where you're misrepresenting the issues from the Dems so you can look reasonable and moderate, but it's a rhetorical fallacy. Then you ask us to defend positions we have never taken while deflecting any criticism of Trump as simply partisan attacks and offer mild criticism of him in order to seem fair and balanced when you're not even really criticizing him, just saying you agree with his ideas just wish he went further.


To be fair Europe was working with the US in terms of sharing information and data. You can understand being skeptical of a country where the virus started yet they weren't forthright with any information, no?

Also a question, are we judging covid response by death or death rate? Just trying to be on the same page because if the argument is 196k deaths. While states like TX and FL were destroyed for there covid responses and Cuomo asking for praise for his response the death rates aren't even comparable to a state like NY and NJ.

Since you missed it the first time:

K-DOT wrote:And you still ignore the point that the initial response by the Dems was bad, but they fixed their mistakes and will admit they were wrong. Trump won't do that, which is what he's getting criticized for. What you're doing is creating a strawman, where you're misrepresenting the issues from the Dems so you can look reasonable and moderate, but it's a rhetorical fallacy. Then you ask us to defend positions we have never taken while deflecting any criticism of Trump as simply partisan attacks and offer mild criticism of him in order to seem fair and balanced when you're not even really criticizing him, just saying you agree with his ideas just wish he went further.


You're not arguing in good faith. This is why people have problems with Republicans.
BAF Lakers:

Darius Garland/Carsen Edwards
Eric Gordon/Avery Bradley
Cam Johnson/Keldon Johnson
Obi Toppin/Darius Bazley
Goga Bitadze/Bol Bol

rip Josh Jackson's contract
User avatar
3toheadmelo
RealGM
Posts: 39,822
And1: 37,492
Joined: Feb 15, 2015
 

Re: 2020 Presidential Election (All Serious POVs Welcome) 

Post#1210 » by 3toheadmelo » Wed Sep 16, 2020 7:18 pm

mpharris36 wrote:
K-DOT wrote:
mpharris36 wrote:
thats why I called it restrictions and not a ban because I didn't think it was harsh enough (see trump can do something wrong). But he was literally destroyed for a light restriction, saying he was racist and xenophobic. I'm sure we all could have imagined the response if he literally banned people from the country on Jan 31st when the rest of the country for the next two months was saying its not that bad.

It was racist and xenophobic because that's all he did, which is the part that you're ignoring

If he did that in conjunction with ramping up medical production and using that time gained to prepare as well as restricting people from Europe, it wouldn't've been racist or xenophobic, it would've been justifiable as giving us time to prepare. We were going to get the virus no matter how strict the ban was, yet you're acting like him doing only that just harsher would've been a good response

And you still ignore the point that the initial response by the Dems was bad, but they fixed their mistakes and will admit they were wrong. Trump won't do that, which is what he's getting criticized for. What you're doing is creating a strawman, where you're misrepresenting the issues from the Dems so you can look reasonable and moderate, but it's a rhetorical fallacy. Then you ask us to defend positions we have never taken while deflecting any criticism of Trump as simply partisan attacks and offer mild criticism of him in order to seem fair and balanced when you're not even really criticizing him, just saying you agree with his ideas just wish he went further.


To be fair Europe was working with the US in terms of sharing information and data. You can understand being skeptical of a country where the virus started yet they weren't forthright with any information, no?

Also a question, are we judging covid response by death or death rate? Just trying to be on the same page because if the argument is 196k deaths. While states like TX and FL were destroyed for there covid responses and Cuomo asking for praise for his response the death rates aren't even comparable to a state like NY and NJ.

Most Floridians hate Desantis for his COVID response. I much rather have Cuomo even with his faults over Desantis as our governor.
Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter


Now he is trying to mess with the data to show that COVID is going away so he can reopen everything and harm more people.
Read on Twitter
Cavs Nation
PG: Jamal Murray/McLaughlin
SG: Zach Lavine/Dunn
SF: Jayson Tatum/Troy Brown Jr
PF: Bam Adebayo
C: Deandre Ayton/Randle


It's like when lil bitches make subliminal records, If it ain't directed directly at me, I don't respect it
User avatar
mpharris36
Forum Mod - Knicks
Forum Mod - Knicks
Posts: 70,509
And1: 43,454
Joined: Nov 03, 2010
     

Re: 2020 Presidential Election (All Serious POVs Welcome) 

Post#1211 » by mpharris36 » Wed Sep 16, 2020 7:23 pm

K-DOT wrote:
mpharris36 wrote:
K-DOT wrote:It was racist and xenophobic because that's all he did, which is the part that you're ignoring

If he did that in conjunction with ramping up medical production and using that time gained to prepare as well as restricting people from Europe, it wouldn't've been racist or xenophobic, it would've been justifiable as giving us time to prepare. We were going to get the virus no matter how strict the ban was, yet you're acting like him doing only that just harsher would've been a good response

And you still ignore the point that the initial response by the Dems was bad, but they fixed their mistakes and will admit they were wrong. Trump won't do that, which is what he's getting criticized for. What you're doing is creating a strawman, where you're misrepresenting the issues from the Dems so you can look reasonable and moderate, but it's a rhetorical fallacy. Then you ask us to defend positions we have never taken while deflecting any criticism of Trump as simply partisan attacks and offer mild criticism of him in order to seem fair and balanced when you're not even really criticizing him, just saying you agree with his ideas just wish he went further.


To be fair Europe was working with the US in terms of sharing information and data. You can understand being skeptical of a country where the virus started yet they weren't forthright with any information, no?

Also a question, are we judging covid response by death or death rate? Just trying to be on the same page because if the argument is 196k deaths. While states like TX and FL were destroyed for there covid responses and Cuomo asking for praise for his response the death rates aren't even comparable to a state like NY and NJ.

Since you missed it the first time:

K-DOT wrote:And you still ignore the point that the initial response by the Dems was bad, but they fixed their mistakes and will admit they were wrong. Trump won't do that, which is what he's getting criticized for. What you're doing is creating a strawman, where you're misrepresenting the issues from the Dems so you can look reasonable and moderate, but it's a rhetorical fallacy. Then you ask us to defend positions we have never taken while deflecting any criticism of Trump as simply partisan attacks and offer mild criticism of him in order to seem fair and balanced when you're not even really criticizing him, just saying you agree with his ideas just wish he went further.


You're not arguing in good faith. This is why people have problems with Republicans.


not arguing in good faith? due to what?

Are you suggesting I think trump does no wrong? Because I can tell you resoundingly that isn't the case. I hate our voting system where we literally have to pick two poor candidates. Nothing screams exciting when having to vote for flawed 74 and 77 year olds to run the country.
BAF Spurs:

ROSTER
1. Frank Ntilikina- $170/2 years
2. Michael Porter Jr.- $61/5 years
3. Terence Davis- $2/4 years
4. Chris Boucher- $1/3 years

9 lottery picks in the 2020 draft
Pointgod
General Manager
Posts: 9,979
And1: 9,697
Joined: Jun 28, 2014

Re: 2020 Presidential Election (All Serious POVs Welcome) 

Post#1212 » by Pointgod » Wed Sep 16, 2020 7:25 pm

mpharris36 wrote:
K-DOT wrote:
mpharris36 wrote:
thats why I called it restrictions and not a ban because I didn't think it was harsh enough (see trump can do something wrong). But he was literally destroyed for a light restriction, saying he was racist and xenophobic. I'm sure we all could have imagined the response if he literally banned people from the country on Jan 31st when the rest of the country for the next two months was saying its not that bad.

It was racist and xenophobic because that's all he did, which is the part that you're ignoring

If he did that in conjunction with ramping up medical production and using that time gained to prepare as well as restricting people from Europe, it wouldn't've been racist or xenophobic, it would've been justifiable as giving us time to prepare. We were going to get the virus no matter how strict the ban was, yet you're acting like him doing only that just harsher would've been a good response

And you still ignore the point that the initial response by the Dems was bad, but they fixed their mistakes and will admit they were wrong. Trump won't do that, which is what he's getting criticized for. What you're doing is creating a strawman, where you're misrepresenting the issues from the Dems so you can look reasonable and moderate, but it's a rhetorical fallacy. Then you ask us to defend positions we have never taken while deflecting any criticism of Trump as simply partisan attacks and offer mild criticism of him in order to seem fair and balanced when you're not even really criticizing him, just saying you agree with his ideas just wish he went further.


To be fair Europe was working with the US in terms of sharing information and data. You can understand being skeptical of a country where the virus started yet they weren't forthright with any information, no?

Also a question, are we judging covid response by death or death rate? Just trying to be on the same page because if the argument is 196k deaths. While states like TX and FL were destroyed for there covid responses and Cuomo asking for praise for his response the death rates aren't even comparable to a state like NY and NJ.


TX and FL are rightly killed for their covid response because they had all the evidence and saw what NY and NJ had went through and still decided to ignore science and put people in harm’s way. And if wasn’t for the response of the states that got hit earlier in the pandemic TX, FL and the whole country would be exponentially worse. You do get that right? These things aren’t disconnected because people can travel through states.
User avatar
K-DOT
Forum Mod - Knicks
Forum Mod - Knicks
Posts: 13,131
And1: 18,270
Joined: Nov 25, 2016
         

Re: 2020 Presidential Election (All Serious POVs Welcome) 

Post#1213 » by K-DOT » Wed Sep 16, 2020 7:30 pm

mpharris36 wrote:
K-DOT wrote:
mpharris36 wrote:
To be fair Europe was working with the US in terms of sharing information and data. You can understand being skeptical of a country where the virus started yet they weren't forthright with any information, no?

Also a question, are we judging covid response by death or death rate? Just trying to be on the same page because if the argument is 196k deaths. While states like TX and FL were destroyed for there covid responses and Cuomo asking for praise for his response the death rates aren't even comparable to a state like NY and NJ.

Since you missed it the first time:

K-DOT wrote:And you still ignore the point that the initial response by the Dems was bad, but they fixed their mistakes and will admit they were wrong. Trump won't do that, which is what he's getting criticized for. What you're doing is creating a strawman, where you're misrepresenting the issues from the Dems so you can look reasonable and moderate, but it's a rhetorical fallacy. Then you ask us to defend positions we have never taken while deflecting any criticism of Trump as simply partisan attacks and offer mild criticism of him in order to seem fair and balanced when you're not even really criticizing him, just saying you agree with his ideas just wish he went further.


You're not arguing in good faith. This is why people have problems with Republicans.


not arguing in good faith? due to what?

Are you suggesting I think trump does no wrong? Because I can tell you resoundingly that isn't the case. I hate our voting system where we literally have to pick two poor candidates. Nothing screams exciting when having to vote for flawed 74 and 77 year olds to run the country.

You're not arguing in good faith because you're just resorting to rhetorical fallacies and evading the points against him

You also don't disagree with his policies, as they are very much in line with the current Republican party, you just wish he were less of a dick about it. Your issue is with the man, not the ideas, but you fail to realize the ideas of the Republicans are always gonna lead to people like Trump being in charge.
BAF Lakers:

Darius Garland/Carsen Edwards
Eric Gordon/Avery Bradley
Cam Johnson/Keldon Johnson
Obi Toppin/Darius Bazley
Goga Bitadze/Bol Bol

rip Josh Jackson's contract
User avatar
HarthorneWingo
Knicks Forum Grandpa's Law
Posts: 62,115
And1: 28,347
Joined: May 16, 2005
   

Re: 2020 Presidential Election (All Serious POVs Welcome) 

Post#1214 » by HarthorneWingo » Wed Sep 16, 2020 7:31 pm

Bernie hater, James Carville admits that Bernie's (and Wingo's) critique of Biden's campaign messages is correct. :nod:

Image
User avatar
mpharris36
Forum Mod - Knicks
Forum Mod - Knicks
Posts: 70,509
And1: 43,454
Joined: Nov 03, 2010
     

Re: 2020 Presidential Election (All Serious POVs Welcome) 

Post#1215 » by mpharris36 » Wed Sep 16, 2020 7:32 pm

3toheadmelo wrote:
mpharris36 wrote:
K-DOT wrote:It was racist and xenophobic because that's all he did, which is the part that you're ignoring

If he did that in conjunction with ramping up medical production and using that time gained to prepare as well as restricting people from Europe, it wouldn't've been racist or xenophobic, it would've been justifiable as giving us time to prepare. We were going to get the virus no matter how strict the ban was, yet you're acting like him doing only that just harsher would've been a good response

And you still ignore the point that the initial response by the Dems was bad, but they fixed their mistakes and will admit they were wrong. Trump won't do that, which is what he's getting criticized for. What you're doing is creating a strawman, where you're misrepresenting the issues from the Dems so you can look reasonable and moderate, but it's a rhetorical fallacy. Then you ask us to defend positions we have never taken while deflecting any criticism of Trump as simply partisan attacks and offer mild criticism of him in order to seem fair and balanced when you're not even really criticizing him, just saying you agree with his ideas just wish he went further.


To be fair Europe was working with the US in terms of sharing information and data. You can understand being skeptical of a country where the virus started yet they weren't forthright with any information, no?

Also a question, are we judging covid response by death or death rate? Just trying to be on the same page because if the argument is 196k deaths. While states like TX and FL were destroyed for there covid responses and Cuomo asking for praise for his response the death rates aren't even comparable to a state like NY and NJ.

Most Floridians hate Desantis for his COVID response. I much rather have Cuomo even with his faults over Desantis as our governor.
Read on Twitter

Read on Twitter


Now he is trying to mess with the data to show that COVID is going away so he can reopen everything and harm more people.
Read on Twitter


Fair. I'm just trying to understand what are we evaluating. Most of the time people reference the 196k deaths. If response is correlated to death total/death rates.

I do think NY/NJ rebounded but the decisions to send the covid patience to nursing homes was just too costly. If we are going to say every life matters those lives mattered even if he rebounded.

There are also businesses and people that are completely leaving NY. I really hope once this clears we get a rebound in NY but Cuomo was begging people to come back. Even was willing to cook them dinner :lol:
BAF Spurs:

ROSTER
1. Frank Ntilikina- $170/2 years
2. Michael Porter Jr.- $61/5 years
3. Terence Davis- $2/4 years
4. Chris Boucher- $1/3 years

9 lottery picks in the 2020 draft
User avatar
HarthorneWingo
Knicks Forum Grandpa's Law
Posts: 62,115
And1: 28,347
Joined: May 16, 2005
   

Re: 2020 Presidential Election (All Serious POVs Welcome) 

Post#1216 » by HarthorneWingo » Wed Sep 16, 2020 7:43 pm

mpharris36 wrote:
HarthorneWingo wrote:
mpharris36 wrote:
Is he an ****? Sure he is. You will get no disagreement from me there. Trump got into office because people were tired of pandering career politicians that did nothing when they got into office. But you and I have a total different understanding of what the destruction of the country looks like.


What'd you think of Bernie?


I think he is generally a nice person. Seems sincere and his goal for every person in the country to have a minimum standard living (income, housing, healthcare education) is great in theory. I just don't know how you would pay for it by just taxing the super rich because they can move. Its the people that do pretty well for themselves that support a family on one income where I would be taking a hit the numbers just don't add up.

I personally just prefer to have the least amount of gov't control as possible. I would like to pick my own path rather then someone pick it for me. Thats just a personal preference. But to have that plan work you would have to believe ever single person would do there part to have a Utopian society where everyone helps out. I think you and I both know there are people that would not plan on working or doing there part and just live off the standardized living from the gov't. You might have a better outlook on people then I do but I just don't see that as a feasible long term goal. I'm not suggesting democratic socials is going to turn to communism but you can understand some peoples potential fear.

if there ends up being no financial incentive for someone to be a doctor, or surgeon, or top scientist or someone to create the new great idea because he/she wont be able to be rewarded for that in a true capitalistic market you have to ask yourself what incentive would there be?

Though I am never one to fault someone for supporting him. He has a backbone at least and you know what he believes in. I just don't support the ideas personally.


Because you don't know how he'd pay for it?

I believe he proposed a .05% (or less) tax of all speculative Wall Street transactions. The income wealth distribution in this country has swung in favor of the oligarchs and corporations in this country since the Eisenhower republican administration when the marginal income tax for income over $400k (late 50s) was 90%. We can find a way to come up with the money very easily. We could've supported our restaurant and bar industry during this pandemic had the republicans in congress wanted to do so. Trust me, the money is there.
Image
User avatar
mpharris36
Forum Mod - Knicks
Forum Mod - Knicks
Posts: 70,509
And1: 43,454
Joined: Nov 03, 2010
     

Re: 2020 Presidential Election (All Serious POVs Welcome) 

Post#1217 » by mpharris36 » Wed Sep 16, 2020 7:47 pm

K-DOT wrote:
mpharris36 wrote:
K-DOT wrote:Since you missed it the first time:



You're not arguing in good faith. This is why people have problems with Republicans.


not arguing in good faith? due to what?

Are you suggesting I think trump does no wrong? Because I can tell you resoundingly that isn't the case. I hate our voting system where we literally have to pick two poor candidates. Nothing screams exciting when having to vote for flawed 74 and 77 year olds to run the country.

You're not arguing in good faith because you're just resorting to rhetorical fallacies and evading the points against him

You also don't disagree with his policies, as they are very much in line with the current Republican party, you just wish he were less of a dick about it. Your issue is with the man, not the ideas, but you fail to realize the ideas of the Republicans are always gonna lead to people like Trump being in charge.


The republican party was founded with Abraham Lincoln as its first president for the party (arguably the best president in our history). I don't see how you can make those assertions.

Trump was a registered democrat in the 2000's. So this idea that republicans are always like trump is just wrong.

If Tim Scott wanted to run and he was running against trump I would vote for Tim Scott (I like him significantly better). But I don't think he wants to run too much sh*t comes with it.
BAF Spurs:

ROSTER
1. Frank Ntilikina- $170/2 years
2. Michael Porter Jr.- $61/5 years
3. Terence Davis- $2/4 years
4. Chris Boucher- $1/3 years

9 lottery picks in the 2020 draft
User avatar
HarthorneWingo
Knicks Forum Grandpa's Law
Posts: 62,115
And1: 28,347
Joined: May 16, 2005
   

Re: 2020 Presidential Election (All Serious POVs Welcome) 

Post#1218 » by HarthorneWingo » Wed Sep 16, 2020 7:47 pm

200,000 American deaths and counting
Image
User avatar
K-DOT
Forum Mod - Knicks
Forum Mod - Knicks
Posts: 13,131
And1: 18,270
Joined: Nov 25, 2016
         

Re: 2020 Presidential Election (All Serious POVs Welcome) 

Post#1219 » by K-DOT » Wed Sep 16, 2020 7:58 pm

mpharris36 wrote:
K-DOT wrote:
mpharris36 wrote:
not arguing in good faith? due to what?

Are you suggesting I think trump does no wrong? Because I can tell you resoundingly that isn't the case. I hate our voting system where we literally have to pick two poor candidates. Nothing screams exciting when having to vote for flawed 74 and 77 year olds to run the country.

You're not arguing in good faith because you're just resorting to rhetorical fallacies and evading the points against him

You also don't disagree with his policies, as they are very much in line with the current Republican party, you just wish he were less of a dick about it. Your issue is with the man, not the ideas, but you fail to realize the ideas of the Republicans are always gonna lead to people like Trump being in charge.


The republican party was founded with Abraham Lincoln as its first president for the party (arguably the best president in our history). I don't see how you can make those assertions.

Trump was a registered democrat in the 2000's. So this idea that republicans are always like trump is just wrong.

If Tim Scott wanted to run and he was running against trump I would vote for Tim Scott (I like him significantly better). But I don't think he wants to run too much sh*t comes with it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy

Tim Scott votes in line with Trump 94% of the time.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/congress-trump-score/tim-scott/

Which is like, top 10 in the Senate. Really just proving my point that your issue isn't the policy, just the way he says it. You want him to stop saying the quiet part out loud.
BAF Lakers:

Darius Garland/Carsen Edwards
Eric Gordon/Avery Bradley
Cam Johnson/Keldon Johnson
Obi Toppin/Darius Bazley
Goga Bitadze/Bol Bol

rip Josh Jackson's contract
User avatar
Rasho Brezec
Knicks Forum Euro Scout
Posts: 61,108
And1: 17,696
Joined: Mar 12, 2008
Contact:
   

Re: 2020 Presidential Election (All Serious POVs Welcome) 

Post#1220 » by Rasho Brezec » Wed Sep 16, 2020 8:05 pm

This thread doing a good job convincing mpharris to vote Trump.
Image

Return to New York Knicks