Joe Biden's Big-Tent Strategy Seems to Be Working
By: John Cassidy (The New Yorker)
Joe Biden is not Trump. That's the only thing the broad electorate really cares about. No one is paying attention to Joe Biden. The country may experience buyer's remorse when Trump is gone. Democrats have created a mine field that will be difficult to negotiate after President Joe has taken the oath.
All the political analysis is just so much hot air. At this point nobody cares what Joe Biden is promising; the only thing of importance is that Biden is not Trump. And the comparison between Biden and Trump doesn't require must effort on the part of political analysts. The problems will arise after the election. Will Joe Biden become the next Jimmy Carter?
The 2020 election is all about personality. Policy is receiving very little attention other than its value for pandering to voters who, apparently, don't care. It will be too late to care about policy after President Joe takes the oath. The 2022 midterms aren't looking too promising for Democrats. This is shaping up to be a revival of the 2008 election.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Earlier this week, there was a telling moment when Joe Biden spoke in Wilmington, Delaware, about the need to combat systemic racism and foster racial equality in the American economy. His speech was the latest in a series of public appearances in which the Presidential candidate has rolled out his Build Back Better economic agenda; earlier discussions were devoted to strengthening American manufacturing, addressing climate change, and building up the caring economy. "This election is not just about voting against Donald Trump," Biden said. "It's about rising to this moment of crisis, understanding people's struggles, and building a future worthy of their courage and their ambition to overcome."
The giveaway was the phrase "not just about." Since capturing the Democratic nomination, Biden has repeatedly acknowledged, implicitly and explicitly, that, for many Americans, the 2020 election is mainly about getting rid of his opponent. This dynamic was clear during the primaries, when a majority of Democrats told pollsters that their top priority was selecting someone who could defeat Trump. It's evident today in the endorsements that the former Vice-President has picked up, from groups ranging from the Lincoln Project, an organization of Never Trump Republicans that is running ads attacking the President and supporting Biden, to Indivisible, a group of progressive activists whose home page blares, "BEAT TRUMP AND SAVE DEMOCRACY."
To the members of these groups, and to many other Americans, Biden's role is to serve as a human lever to pry a disastrous President out of the White House. Defying the concerns of some political professionals who watched his primary campaign, the former Vice-President is shaping up to be an effective crowbar. Since wrapping up the nomination, in March, he and his campaign team have successfully navigated at least three significant political challenges.
The first was uniting the Democratic Party after a chaotic primary season. To this end, Biden has reached out to the Party's progressive wing and tacked to the left in some of his own policy proposals. He created a Unity Task Force—including Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and other supporters of Bernie Sanders—that released a lengthy set of recommendations earlier this month. Biden now supportsElizabeth Warren's bankruptcy plan, which would make it easier for financially strapped people to discharge their debts. He has put forward a proposal to insure free tuition for many students at public colleges, modelled on an earlier Sanders plan. His climate-change strategy sets a target of 2035 for the creation of a zero-emissions power grid, which is just five years later than the deadline laid out in the Green New Deal. Some Sanders supporters are still scornful of Biden, but there has been no repeat of the internecine conflict that occurred in 2016.
The second task facing Biden was to fashion a coherent response to the tumultuous events of 2020. That's where his Build Back Better plan comes in. The members of his policy team have worked on the assumption that the coronavirus-stricken economy will need substantial financial support for years. They think that this presents an opportunity to make it greener, more worker-friendly, and more racially inclusive. Biden's proposals include spending two trillion dollars on projects to move beyond fossil fuels; seven hundred and seventy-five billion dollars on expanding care for preschoolers and the elderly; and a hundred and fifty billion dollars on supporting small, minority-owned businesses. He's also promised to insure that forty per cent of the investment in green-energy infrastructure benefits disadvantaged communities, to expand rent subsidies for low-income households, to facilitate labor-union organizing, and to introduce a national minimum wage of fifteen dollars per hour.
Many progressive policy experts still think that Biden's proposals don't go far enough, but some of them are also issuing qualified praise. "When you look at all four elements of his economic platform, I think some of them have been very good—the climate plan in particular," Felicia Wong, the president of the Roosevelt Institute, told me. Wong also said that the speech Biden gave this week about the economy, race, and the coronavirus was an effective one. "He recognized that people of color suffer the most in economic downturns, and also bounce back last," she said. "It's hard for a lot of people to make the race and economic arguments together, and he laid it out eloquently."
The third challenge that Biden faced was to avoid giving Trump an easy target. The pandemic has made the dodging part easier. Hunkered down in Wilmington, Biden largely has left the President to dig his own hole—which he has done, ably. But Biden has also reached out to Trump Country. The first of his Build Back Better speeches was delivered in Rust Belt Pennsylvania: it included calls to restore American manufacturing and "buy American." As well as adopting some of the language of economic nationalism, Biden has rejected certain progressive proposals, such as defunding the police and enforcing a complete ban on fracking, that might alienate moderate whites in battleground states.
This is smart politics, Ruy Teixeira, a polling expert and senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, told me. Despite the changing demographics of the United States, whites who don't have a college degree still make up about forty-four per cent of the eligible electorate, according to Teixeira; in some places, such as parts of the Midwest, the figure is even higher. "You cannot cede massive sections of the electorate if you want to be successful politically," Teixeira said.
In 2016, Trump carried the white non-college demographic by thirty-one percentage points at the national level, according to Teixeira's analysis of exit polls and election returns. Biden has narrowed the gap to twelve points, Teixeira said, citing a recent survey. That is similar to the margin in 2008, when Barack Obama defeated John McCain and the Democrats increased their majorities in both houses of Congress. As it is often defined, the Obama coalition consisted of minority voters, college-educated white liberals, and young people. Teixeira pointed out that Obama's ability to restrict McCain's margin in the white non-college demographic was also important, and if Biden matched that feat in November, he said, it could be of enormous consequence. "This is not the only thing that is going wrong for Trump," Teixeira said, "but it is the thing that could give the Democrats the big victory that they need to govern effectively."
None of this means that Biden is a lock for the Oval Office. Between now and November 3rd, something could conceivably shift the momentum against him, such as a Vice-Presidential pick that backfires, a major slipup in the debates, or a surprising economic upturn. Right now, though, the challenger's strategy of keeping the focus on the incumbent and pitching a broad tent that accommodates anyone who wants to see the back of Trump is working well.
Democrats have spent the last four years taking hard line stances on a variety of issues. Joe Biden is going to inherit a political mine field that can't be crossed without a lot of political pain.
While elected Republicans have fallen shamelessly in line, "never-Trumpers" include some fairly heavy hitters from previous Republican administrations.
Sites like The Bulwark and the Lincoln Project are wicked!
Will those 'never-Trumpers' accept Democrat's hard-line positions? 'Never-Trumpers' view Trump's policy positions as a threat.
'Never-Trumpers' are choosing who they can easily defeat. 'Never-Trumpers' don't view Democrats as a threat. They've thrashed Democrats before and the expectation is that Democrats can be thrashed again. The enemy of Democrat's enemy ain't Democrat's friend.
Interestingly, there's a serious debate among the never-Trumpers concerning the Republican Party. Some say "burn it all down" (and start over, from scratch). Others would like to not have to rebuild everything.
The Bulwark carries opinion pieces on both sides.
Good article. I disagree with the idea in Challenge # 1. It wasn't Biden or his campaign that united the party - It was the insiders who decided, once the primary came down to Biden vs Sanders, that they needed Biden. It all happened in a few days, out came the endorsements and Biden was on his way to becoming that blunt object to oust a President.
Between now and November 3rd, something could conceivably shift the momentum against him, such as a Vice-Presidential pick that backfires, a major slipup in the debates, or a surprising economic upturn.
And of course, the early development of a vaccine.
Trump is currently down, China saw to that, but never count him out!
The same thing happened between Jimmy Carter and Ted Kennedy. Carter got the nod because of fears that Kennedy was too far left and wasn't electable. Carter even chose Walter Mondale (who was as left as Kennedy) and adopted some of Kennedy's campaign positions to unify the party.
Jimmy Carter ran against an incumbent President whose fitness and legitimacy was being questioned. Gerald Ford never won a Presidential election.
The election of Jimmy Carter ultimately gave us Ronald Reagan who did much to create the problems we are dealing with today. Joe Biden winning the election may well damage the country in ways that we can't imagine. The country can't survive another Ronald Reagan.
Wait! Are you claiming that Saint Ronny was a centrist Democrat????
That will make some heads explode, Nerm
That was the 1980 DNC primary. I would have thought you would have picked the 1976 DNC primary, where Carter faced a multitude of liberal candidates, which led him to campaign as a moderate?
In either event Jimmy Carter had a functioning brain, although his ideology was hidden from the voters. He turned out to be one of our worst presidents. The one similarity is that Biden is also running as a fake moderate.
Joe Biden winning the election may well damage the country in ways that we can't imagine.
The nation will be in the hands of the radical left. Whoever he picks will replace him as soon as the democrats remove him, most likely by asking him to step down. His election will be the end of America as we know it.
No, Ronald Reagan was a conservative Democrat. Reagan made the Republican Party acceptable for Dixiecrats.
He ran as a Republican.....Nixon made the Republican Party safe for Dixiecrats
Nixon was far more liberal than Reagan. Gerald Ford wasn't that conservative, either.
Barry Goldwater's anti-New Deal conservatism appealed to Dixiecrats. But that anti-New Deal conservatism didn't become the centerpiece of Republican politics until Ronald Reagan was elected. Until the election of Ronald Reagan, the Republican Party had been divided between progressive and conservative factions. Reagan made the Republican Party acceptable for Dixiecrats. Before Reagan, the Dixiecrats were a fringe faction within the Republican Party. That's why George Wallace ran as an independent in '68 instead of as a Republican.
The only thing that was a little bit liberal about Nixon was the Clean Air Act, and the signing into law EPA and OSHA.
That's it.
Why would the Dixiecrats feel safe with Nixon?
Strong on Civil Rights too. Not someone the racist Democrats would have interest in.
Because he spoke their language?
Ever hear his tapes?
Methinks a little education is needed.
G.O.P. Shift Moves Center Far to Right
And don't try to tell me that the New York Times is a source of far-right conspiracy theories. Why do Democrats quote Ronald Reagan instead of Richard Nixon?
Jimmy Carter ushered in Ronald Reagan. And Joe Biden is on track to become another Jimmy Carter. Democrats may defeat Trump with the help of 'Never Trumpers' but that will only open the door for more Reagan ideological nonsense. The country cannot survive another Reagan.
Don't confuse with facts.
He never does. Use facts, that is.
And if Republicans were running against an inept incumbent who was despised by more than half the country they'd probably be doing the same thing Democrats are doing and just giving their opponent more rope instead of having to actually present a better alternative.
Not likely. There will be huge celebrations all across the nation when the feckless moron dishonest Donald is unceremoniously kicked out of the white house and into a court room to defend himself against the many indictments that are coming down the pike.
Only conservative partisans with their heads buried in the sand can't see that the problems have been on the rise for nearly four years now. Getting rid of the complete moron in the oval office is key to starting to fix those problems.
Most of the nation think that moment couldn't come soon enough. They recognize how unfit dumb shit Donald is for the office and know the only way to save our nation is to resoundingly reject Trumpism.
Only in witless conservatives fever dreams.
So? That wouldn't change the fact that the election is all about personality with little attention given to policy.
Use the way-back machine to review 2010. There were huge celebrations across the country following the 2008 election but Democrats chose to screw the pooch. Don't underestimate the stupidity of the political establishment.
Problems caused by establishment politics have been on the rise for over a half century. The country is facing problems that can't be addressed by the establishment politics that contributed in large part to the problems.
Yes, that is the sum total of the Biden campaign. Joe Biden is not Trump. That's all there is and there is nothing more.
There could be more in an instant. Right now, letting Trump hang himself is the best strategy. But the platform is ready.
It's true most of the Democrats polled say they are electing Biden not because they like him, but because they think he's the best way to get rid of Trump. The moderates and progressives in the party are uniting behind that idea and may very well have buyers remorse once a new administration actually gets to work. Ol' Joe is pretty moderate and only throwing the progressives a couple of bones on energy and community policy ideas right now.
There's no way yet to determine how far left he'll actually go and a lot of this may depend on Democrat Senate wins. Too far to the left and Biden loses the moderates - not caving to the left on certain issues will anger the Sanders' wing. I'm pretty sure well see a push on better environmental policy, DACA and the decriminalization (not legalization) of weed under Biden, but I don't see any major changes anywhere else.
I think Biden even admitted he might want to be just a one term president.
There is no pleasing the extreme progressives. They would turn on Sanders if he was president and unable to enact their extreme policy.
I hadn't heard that, but it wouldn't surprise me. That may play into this VP pick if true.
Correct. They are just as much populists as the current bag of crap. I noticed that Cori Bush won over Lacy Clay in MO yesterday. If she wins (and is favored to) in Nov it puts another progressive in congress.
Biden's main appeal during the primaries was electability. The other candidates were running on policy ideas; Biden ran on not being Trump.
Democrats have committed to escalating tensions with Russia. Democrats have committed to maintaining or expanding military deployments in allied countries (and increasing military spending). Democrats have committed to escalating tensions in the Middle East by supporting the Kurds and taking a hard line stance against Turkey. Democrats have committed to escalating geo-political conflicts around the world.
Democrats have committed to increasing the number of service jobs (which will be difficult during the pandemic; vaccines won't be a silver bullet). Democrats have committed to revitalizing tourism, luxury travel, and recreational business activities. Democrats have committed to reestablishing dependence of the consumer market on foreign manufacturing and international trade. Democrats have committed to making the United States energy dependent on China (who is the world's largest supplier of solar and wind alternatives).
Dems this Dems that. Meanwhile ignore repubs this, repubs that....
Russia is escalating the tension themselves. Funny that repubs just want to ignore it. The increase in military spending has happened these last couple of years...
That you think removing bases and troops from allied countries does not empower countries like Russia and give in to what they want...
I hardly see supporting people that we promised to protect escalating tensions and Turkey needs a hard stance instead of just ignoring them and giving free reign.
The idea that Dems want to escalate tension around the world is complete bullshit. I could turn around and say donald wants to coddle dictators while treating our allies like shit.
Frankly I see that as a good thing. The nation needs to get back to center left, we do not need to swing the pendulum to the far left simply as an overreaction to the pendulum swinging so far right over the last few years. We need to stay away from the extremes on both ends, neither are healthy for our nation and those on the far right will only use the threat and fear of the far left to demonize and attack those in the left center as they always do.
I believe the majority of Americans simply want to bring us back from the extreme right edge we've been pushed to by right wing zealots and nepotistic conservative narcissist's. They aren't looking for revolution this next election cycle, just a respite from the right wing insanity of the last four years. Comfy Joe is just what they're looking for.
It seems to me that not being Trump is working just fine for Biden for now.
You're preaching to the choir here. The issue at hand isn't how to govern nor what the majority want, it's keeping the wings at bay. If you get down to it, the majority really don't give a fuck as long as the economy works and The Bachelor airs without interruption. It's the factions at the edges that are energized, organized and winning the primaries.
Who, more precisely?
I'm sure one Democrat or the other has said almost anything... but Biden is not constrained by stuff said by random Dems.
Biden is becoming a force of nature where as Trump is an ill wind that blows no good.
Joe Biden could quite easily become the next Jimmy Carter. Carter ran against an incumbent President whose fitness and legitimacy was being questioned. Gerald Ford never won a Presidential election, after all.
Democrats have created a mess for themselves by adopting diametrically opposing hard line stances. Any attempts by Democrats to find a compromise will be viewed with skepticism. Democrats have placed themselves in the position of having to go all in on their hard line positions; the political consequences of compromise are predictable at this juncture.
Joe Biden's choice will be to either cave to the Democratic establishment's hard line positions - or - push back against his own party to seek a compromise that can't be achieved. That's pretty much the same choice Jimmy Carter was forced to make.
I don't see that. If we look at health-care, for example, there's an entire spectrum of propositions on the table. With more state gradually taking the Medicare extension, a simple clean-up of Obamacare is a viable option for a few years, until the voters are ready for more.
Most of the "differences" are similar.
Democrats have adopted a decidedly more belligerent stance on foreign policy. A President Joe can't avoid escalating tensions with Russia at this point. The problem is that Russia is becoming a trading partner for Europe and Brexit has removed the UKs more sober assessment of Russia. President Joe will depend upon a coalition of the unwilling; Biden can't depend upon the special relationship with the UK to garner European support. Democrats have voiced strong opposition to withdrawing from the Middle East. Escalation of tensions between the United States and Russia will pave the way for proxy wars in the Middle East. China may also become more active in the Middle East since China is searching for financial partners to back its planned regional financial system independent from the West.
Democrats domestic proposals have been inconsistent. Cleaning up Obamacare doesn't wrest control of healthcare from the financial sector which is driving unaffordability; a financial solution to a cost problem will only make the situation worse. Increasing the mandated minimum wage will either increase illegal immigration - or - increase exploitation of illegal immigrants to avoid paying higher wages. The minimum wage cannot be separated from immigration. Investing more public money into installing alternative sources of energy risks the energy independence of the United States. Expanding public education doesn't address cost or need for education; inflating credentials to compete for service jobs will only exacerbate overall inequalities and disparities in the economy.
How do you figure? Trump has started a cold war with China and moved missiles from Germany to Poland's eastern border. He has alienated all our traditional allies. It seems to me that there's plenty of room to move forward peaceably.
You're right, of course. But there won't be any politically feasible way of seriously improving health-care until popular opinion agrees with you. Consolidation of Obamacare is a stopgap for that long.
Your other points are valid, but they don't need to be settled in Biden’s first year. They're a program for a full four years. Not to mention that all of Trump's executive orders must be reversed.
I've already explained how I figure. What Trump has done won't change what Democrats have said needs to be done. Democrats have reiterated the need for fortress Europe to stand against Russian aggression. But Europe has changed. So has Russia, for that matter.
Obamacare was flawed from the beginning. There aren't enough band-aids to make Obamacare work. I don't believe Democrats can revive the individual mandate which would be necessary. Democrats focusing attention on tweaking Obamacare will definitely influence public opinion. Don't ignore 2010.
With the pandemic, Democrats will need to adopt national healthcare to fulfill the expectations they've created. The pandemic won't end with the inauguration of Joe Biden. Biden cannot pursue a robust national response (in contrast to Trump) using Obamacare. Obamacare wasn't designed to meet the needs created by the pandemic.
IMO, they can't be settled by Biden's fourth year. Trump's executive orders haven't really changed anything. It's the Obama executive orders that Trump rescinded that have changed things. I don't believe Biden can lead a third term for an Obama administration; both the Democratic Party and Republican Party have changed too much for that to happen. Obama was effective using establishment politics but I don't see Biden having that luxury. The political demands made on Biden will forestall a return to establishment politics. The public is expecting results that Biden can't deliver with establishment politics.
Russia is a false problem. It's less important, economically, than Germany or France. A gnat compared to the EU. It can be a nuisance on its periphery, but would be buried - again - if it really tried to compete.
US troops in Europe are a political gesture.
That still does not change what Democrats have said needs to be done. Democrats can't avoid escalating tensions with Russia after blaming Russia for losing the 2016 election.
Russia knows how politics works, too. Now that the Democratic Party has adopted European style technocratic politics, it's even easier for Russia to manipulate the United States.
Yes, I have heard that Putin's nick name is 'het khorosho'...
Unlike many conservative Republicans who swoon for Putin, I have no Russian friends. I do, however, know how to use Google.
Translation of het khorosho
I know many conservative Republicans must have trouble using such an easy interface as Google, but give it another try, I'm sure you can do it eventually.
If you're questioning that many Russians think Putin is no good, then here are some links for you.
"Many Russians are enraged with the Kremlin over its botched handling of the coronavirus pandemic."
Hear: intransitive verb - be aware of; know of the existence of.
Besides all your attempted focus on what was clearly a joke, you seem incapable of letting this go. Did it go over your head? Is that why you have to drill down trying to protect and defend Trump who clearly loves metaphorically sucking Putin's tiny little piece of pork?
Trump supporters are starving for every little edge they can get, even if it is an imaginary one based on misinterpreting an obvious joke.
Hahaha....sorry....Hahaha....excuse me...Hahaha
Uh, that would be a no.
It is a shame that this is not an outrageous exaggeration of reality.
It is a shame.
I would vote for the devil before putting a Democrat in the Oval office.
Nanc and Biden are all in with the looney left of the Democrat Party. And Chucky is their love child.
Seems you already have.
Seems you are wrong.
Trump does whatever he wants? The Democrats have tried their hardest to stop him at every decision...there is nothing he has been able to do that is not legal.
Really? And the democrats may have tried to stop him...but where is he still?
He certainly isn't in prison where he belongs.
And yeah...he does do whatever the fuck he wants to.
When you vote for trmp in November, you can be assured that you're voting for the Anti Christ
I haven't seen Trump burning our neighborhoods.
It's because he doesn't know how to light a match
That dishonor belonged primarily to the right wing infil'traitors' and Boogaloo boys who will no doubt be right there shoulder to shoulder with other right wing bigots voting for Trump this November.
That comment was dumb.
have you ever seen him light a match?
I rest my case
[deleted]
All of your wacky sources are only allegations and wishful thinking.
wacky??????
Let me guess...you aren't going to be bothered at even clicking on one of those links, are you?
If you would like to provide evidence of the claim, no one is stopping you.
Just click the first one and show any evidence, not allegations, from the article.
Minnesota Governor Tim Walz echoed this sentiment in a press conference on Saturday alleging that the demonstrations that caused so much damage included provocateurs, likely from outside the area. State officials said around 80 percent of those arrested in the Twin Cities on Friday were from outside Minnesota . Former FBI agent and CNN commentator, Josh Campbell wrote , that Minnesota “authorities have been monitoring alleged criminals online, including postings by suspected white supremacists trying to incite violence.”
Done as you requested, Madam
A Tampa television reporter was broadcasting live from protests last weekend when two young men in Hawaiian shirts moved in front of the camera and began chanting the name of an obscure white nationalist group, drowning out protesters shouting “No Justice, No Peace!”
The incident was one of a growing number in which far-right extremists who once organized mainly online have been inserting themselves into the real-world protests roiling much of the nation, sowing confusion about the nature of the protests and seeking attention for their causes.
Don't you bother to read your own post? This is your evidence?
I will highlight the words in red for you.
They are alleged until they are proven to have committed the crime.
Don't you ever watch the news when they talk about catching an alleged murderer?
So what did they burn?
I hope you read my second comment....
Now you are wandering off to murder...stay focused.
There is no proof to the claim stated at 6.2.3..
When you have something...let me know.
You win
I retract my last comment.
Read this:
Minneapolis 'Umbrella Man' who smashed windows during George Floyd protests was a white supremacist trying to incite riots, police say
Why hasn't he been arrested? You do know being a suspect is not the same as having proof or evidence?
Again, when you have some evidence as asked for let me know.
If the police suspect him as soon as they can find him, he will be charged. Then he will be indicted and then he will be found guilty by a jury of his peers. Or maybe not since his peers are white supremacists
... are a marker for the Boogaloo Boys . Right-wing anarcho-fascists.
You and I know that and many other intelligent people know that, but that's not acceptable "evidence" for [deleted]
Are you defending white supremacists ?
I don't know [deleted.] Is she intentionally ignorant, educatable, or intrinsically hopeless?
Really? All suspects are arrested? What is the evidence?
What white supremacist?
like hooded sweatshirts are a marker for a gang member?
you don’t stereotype do you?
I'll give you one try, Sunshine...
I linked to the Boogaloo Boys in a precedent post. Follow the link. Learn.
Two boys running around in Hawaiian shirts are the agitators.
Learn 😉
Why are you trying to change the subject? Do you feel uncomfortable with the Boogaloo Boys?
"As protests gripped Oakland on May 29, a white van pulled up outside a federal courthouse. A door slid open, and a man peppered the two security officers outside with bullets, killing one and wounding the other."
"Now, federal authorities say the man, identified as Air Force Staff Sgt. Steven Carrillo, 32, was an adherent of the “boogaloo boys,” a growing online extremist movement that has sought to use peaceful protests against police brutality to spread fringe views and ignite a race war. Federal investigators allege that’s exactly what Carrillo was trying to do last month."
"Federal prosecutors on Tuesday charged Carrillo with murder and attempted murder, and leveled aiding and abetting charges against Robert Alvin Justus Jr., who has admitted to serving as a getaway driver during the courthouse ambush, according to the FBI ."
"The men – an Army reservist, a former Navy seaman and a one-time Air Force airman – wanted to scout out the station and, the FBI said, assess it as a target for a possible firebombing.
Despite detailed planning, the plot never came about. The men moved on, with aims to disrupt the economy and cause chaos at protests over the death of George Floyd, according to an FBI criminal complaint.
And all three suspects, arrested on May 30, have military backgrounds. Stephen “Kiwi” Parshall, 35, is a former Navy sailor from Las Vegas; 23-year-old Andrew Lynam is a U.S. Army Reservist from Henderson, Nevada, and William Loomis, 40, is a former airman in the U.S. Air Force from Las Vegas."
" Others associated with the boogaloo movement have also been arrested in recent months. All had the same focus on antigovernment attacks and fomenting a civil war, even if the targets and methods varied."
Bradley Bunn, a military veteran from Loveland, Colorado, is charged with possession of an explosive device.
Chevy McGee, a self-described “boogaloo boi” from Fort Collins, Colorado, told KCNC-TV in Denver that Bunn was “one of our boys.”
A self-proclaimed boogaloo boi from Bowie County, Texas, was arrested in April. Police said Aaron Swenson, 37, was charged with making a terroristic threat against a peace officer, after Swenson “posted a Facebook Live video stating he was going to ambush and murder a Peace Officer.”
A Cleveland, Ohio, man, 20-year-old Christian Ferguson, planned to incite an uprising that would lead to the imposition of martial law and thus the next civil war, the FBI said in a criminal complaint.
" Agents arrested Ferguson later that day and charged him with plotting to kidnap or kill police officers in order to steal their equipment."
It seems you are desperate to protect right wing extremists and are simply in denial. Just accept it, fucking worthless right wing pieces of shit are murderers and terrorists.
Incessant denials speak volumes about where ones allegiances must lie, and those defending right wing extremists shouldn't even be able to call themselves Americans. Perhaps they'd be more comfortable in some white fascist authoritarian government like scum bag Putin's Russia.
Did any of those armed militia members cause any violence or burn anything? Did they do anything different than the white armed militia we've seen protesting the lock down?
It appears only scared cowardly white racists are "threatened" by a black militia. Your links headline claims they "threatened" white people which not even the text of the sad conservative rag "LibertyNewsAlert" could support. They claim the group "challenged" white people to attack them but gives zero evidence of any threats or even "challenges". Just more right wing bullshit loosely packaged as hog feed for sniveling bigoted white racist cowards.
But... but... but...
... antifa!
Again who burned our cities and neighborhoods?
You want to blame a few boys and are in complete denial of the billions of dollars of damage.
Do you think they where Trump voters?
Of course in lock step of TDS sufferers you scream Russia!
Seems to me only black militias are the cowards and bring 200 loaded rifles to a national park.
Why did they need all those weapons? Only a fool would not think it was only to inflame and agitate further violence.
Billions of dollars of damage? What nonsense.
DP is exactly right. As usual.
Well please link the arrests of all the BLM members or self-appointed ANTIFA movement members. You asked for proof any right wing infiltrators were arrested and charged so I gave you half a dozen examples including the ones who shot cops at peaceful protests in an effort to incite a race war. You haven't provided any evidence of anything and have just been making unfounded claims against peaceful protesters and those standing up for equal rights. You post photos of armed black men and link a conservative rag that falsely claims they were "threatening whites" when the fact is only racist whites were imagining a threat simply because they see any armed black man as a threat to their fantasy "white culture".
No one would even be mentioning Russia if there weren't so many conservative Republicans metaphorically bent over sucking Putin's dick along with dirty Donald. They loved it when Russia interfered in the 2016 election and they are hoping they get the same illicit help this election because they know deep down there's simply no fucking way they win the election without it. If more Republicans had an actual spine and stood up to Putin and called him out for his vile murderous actions and illegal influence in our elections perhaps the majority of Americans wouldn't see them as weak spineless cowards.
Perhaps for the same reason whites need all those weapons. Do they not have the same right to bear arms? Are they not also protected by the 2nd amendment?
Only a sniveling racist coward would think it was a threat directed at themselves. Only those who have treated black Americans with disdain, kneeling on their necks, discriminating, racially profiling and lying about them for decades would be fearful of seeing them armed.
Number 1 and number 3
Do you understand the word "allegedly"? It means that there is sufficient evidence to suspect someone of a crime but because they haven't been convicted, it's considered libelous to call someone the perpetrator of a crime without using the word "allegedly".
I should have thought of that yesterday, but I didn't.
And now we are done.
Well what the hell are those the militia at the Michigan capitol carrying? Nerf guns?
Thank-you!
Of course not! They're black! <SARCASM!!!!!>
I guarantee that has been going on more than people want to admit.
It's blatantly obvious who around here isn't willing to admit it. Even with proof shoved up her nose....
Same with mail in ballots.
Republicans/tRump know they will lose that way and they have said as much.
Of course.
The only possible use for a rapid-fire, large magazine firearm is to kill as many people as possible as quickly as possible.
Regardless of race.
The Bundys, father and son ...
As you say google is your friend dear.
And you still have nothing...but keep
I don’t think the white guys needed all those weapons. I don’t base my opinions on skin color as some do. But then only sniveling racist cowards would feel threatened by them.
Your boogy man boys didn’t incite or commit billions of dollars of damage across the nation. Biden supporters did.
I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
Have a nice day!
I thought you where done.
I actually agree with you on this one. I see no reason that the black militia can't have their guns. I watched a long video of the St. Louis march / protest and there were hundreds quietly marching. You hear one young lady politely request that the spectators move off to the side. There wasn't yelling, screaming, fighting, burning, looting, rioting... they marched to the police dept. / city hall, one man gave a speech and a moving one at that... I didn't have any issues with that until they threatened to burn down the building and then requested assistance from the same police they were demanding answers from when one of their own shot themselves. Don't get me wrong, they heard the shot and didn't make assumptions; no violence occurred. I just found it ironic that the police had to come in and help... the EMTs shortly followed and took the man that shot himself to the hospital.
I could make a lot of your typo, but I won't
They bitch and screamed when a few white guys carried their guns to a protest but when 200 weapons are carried by a black militia to a national park....crickets.
The Teaparty just about made the liberals and the sniveling racist wet their panties.
OMG.....
talk about
There's that nonsense and projection again.
Billions of dollars of damage?
Knock yourself out. Isn't that all you have?
You haven't been right from your false claims about Nixon to believing a few of your boogey boys caused complete destruction across our nation.
I will give you at least one.
Oh good grief. You need a nap.
Now I'm done
I can only hope this time.
Let me ask you a question and I am addressing this to all of the rabid mail in votes folks.
If you play and win the lottery jackpot top prize, THE top prize, are you going to mail in your ticket or go in person to the office to collect?
Have at it..............................................oh, and it's an either or question. No need for any "that's ridiculous" or any other of your comebacks. Answer the question.
Some folks just have to get the last word . . .
I don't answer to you.
It would be good for the electorate to correct its mistake of 2016 (a process of decisions that lead to Clinton vs. Trump) followed by the (inexplicable) winning of the presidency by Trump. Trump, as PotUS, has done a fine job of discrediting the office and has further solidified in the views of other nations that the US electorate is nuts.
Too bad (and also inexplicably) the best the Ds could do was prop up Biden. He is not Trump and would clearly behave in a presidential manner so that is good. But he is far too past his prime and I worry who will actually be calling the shots in a Biden presidency. As with 2016, the choices are disappointing.
Okay JR insert your perfunctory claim that my analytical comment is going to hand the presidency back to Trump.
I think part of the problem is we have basically surrendered and gave both parties all the power.
It is party over people.
I think we should outlaw all political parties....but that would be unconstitutional.
It's too bad the American people don't rise up and tell both parties to stick it
Oh hell yeah! What a fantasy ... to kill partisan politics. If only ...
Yep. I think the pool in which to choose from would definitely increase, without having to stick to an R or D.
I also think money is another major problem.
Money is the worst part of it. We need to get that dark money out of politics and make all donations public knowledge
Actually, political parties are not part of the US Constitution. George Washington chastised John Adams and Thomas Jefferson for the creation of political parties in America. See Washington's Farewell Address for of his thoughts on the matter.
Still....it's that whole First Amendment thingy, but I do agree with GW
The Fathers were skeptical of parties... but formed the first ones themselves.
There are lots of ways to rein in the parties, but no real political will to do it. Campaign finance is probably the biggest factor.
Things like ranked voting could limit existing parties and promote third parties.
I think one of the first things I want Biden to do if he is elected is to to something about campaign finance. It needs to be reformed!
It would require Congressional action, I think. So it depends on the Senate.
I agree, but that is one of the classical promises made and never, ever, ever worked on once the elections are over.
True, but he can influence and he can sign legislation pursuant to campaign finance reform if it were to hit his desk.
I like the French system as you described it years ago.
Money can always buy a politician... but it's preferable that the transaction be clearly illegal and unethical. In America today, a politician can collect tens of millions of dollars... legally. And everyone knows that there's always a quid pro quo.
Why do you think Trump was elected?
Clinton tried to turn the 2016 election into a personality contest. But Clinton doesn't have the personality to successfully pull that off; that's why she lost the 2008 nomination. So, the 2016 election was really about policy choices. That's what the news media and political pundits have not understood (or deliberately ignored).
Joe Biden can successfully pull off a competition based on personality. Joe Biden could have beaten Clinton in a personality contest during the 2016 primaries, too.
Joe Biden's main appeal is that he is not Trump; it's a personality contest. The 2020 election isn't about policy.
His support came from people who believed that he would not be a typical career politician and that he would speak candidly. I think his supporters have realized that while Trump is unabashed in his comments, his candor does not correlate with truth. Further, his demeanor as PotUS leaves much to be desired. The only reason he had (has) a chance at a second term was (is) the economy.
I agree with you.
Candor I understand...but blatant lies???? How many are we up to now? 18,000?
He started lying the day he announced
It’s a lie to claim there are “18000” documented lies
funny how that works.
Hmmmm.....seaching...searching....would you kindly show me where I used the word "documented"?
Thanks so much!
Yes, that was the underlying conflict between policy approaches. The 2016 election was a contest between two flawed personalities that engaged in schoolyard bickering. The electorate didn't have a favorable view of either candidate.
Don't ignore that the 2016 election was also a repudiation of Democrat's policy appeal. Also don't ignore that the 2016 primaries was a repudiation of Republican's policy appeal, too. Trump defeated the Republican Party before he defeated the Democratic Party. Trump defeated establishment politics to become President.
IMO, that's why the establishment wants the 2020 election to be a personality contest. The Democrat's policy priorities can be obstructed. But Trump has proven to be more difficult to control or stop. If Trump wins reelection then that will be a major (perhaps irreparable) loss for the establishment. Trump really hasn't harmed the United States but Trump has been devastating for establishment political ideology.
Couple weeks ago, the Washington Post, which has maintained a database, reported that Trump had blown past 20 000.
The Washington Post is not a credible source to some here.
I'm totally not kidding
The twenty candidates were all pretty good, IMNAAHO. My personal preference was "There's a plan for that!" but I wonder if she was "electable". It seems to me that the nomination process produced the best candidate in the end.
Would any of the others been so effective in the role of the Tar Baby? Biden is an unarguably "nice guy" who contrasts excellently with Trump's narcissistic clown.
America doesn't need a one-man-band, a guy who tries to do everything. America needs a chairman, surrounded by a competent cabinet.
Well I greatly dislike Warren. As for chairman, I would rather see Bloomberg as the 'chairman' rather than Biden.
Biden does come across more as the grandfatherly, nice person (optics) and that does indeed play in his favor.
This kind of meme is an admission of mindlessness.
This kind of meme is an admission of mindlessness.
Opinions do vary. However some may find your continued same comment SPAM.
.
And some may find your memes to be mindless crap.
Removed for context
This has always been NT policy. It's no surprise.
It's up to the Group owner to make rules excluding such crap, and then enforce the rules.
I mistook their stupid memes here for the ones they're posting on my seed.
Someday they may get it.
Some memes are funny. Others are mindless crap.
And some people identify mindless crap as "humor".
[[delete]]
Alternatively, it's crap, and you think crap is funny.
That is dumb crap.
I don't give a flying fuck what you think is funny. That's your problem.
If you want to be the kind of person who likes nastiness, that's fine with me.
It's the kind of people who think crotch hits are funny.
They're not funny. It's humorless slapstick
Yeah...but, if you call them what they are deliberately projecting they pitch a 2 y/o tantrum and say people are unfairly picking on them.
What I don't understand is how a person can intentionally make themselves behave like an ass. Have they no self-pride?
If you ever figure it out (in the general case), please write an article explaining it to the rest of us.
Not funny, but significant.
Anti-Biden memes are usually pure invention, as this one. I guess the producers can't find anything genuine.
Meanwhile, a simple Google search yields
There's no need for made-up crap. Trump spews genuine crap full-time.
If you've got something so devastating, why don't you show it... rather than made-up crap?
Do you really expect anyone to believe you if you don't supply liinks?
[[delete]]
Denial
Wish I could see it.
Yeah, but they do make it easy.
And they should stop labeling them gaffes, they are blantant racist comments.
Excellent!
You've shown that Biden gaffes. That's a pity, but a gaffe does no harm.
Above, I posted videos of Trump contradicting himself about a life-and-death matter, Covid-19.
Do you see the difference?
And some find their choice of memes to be disgusting and grossly disrespectful of the handicapped.
I'm going to cease posting to this thread.
On NT, people are allowed the very worst behavior, but we are not allowed to call that behavior by its name.
I do. And if a ticket comes, so be it.
I wonder how funny they think memes that denigrate and make fun of the handicapped if it were their own child or family member was the one being ridiculed and/or demeaned by the meme?
However, some here may be just sick enough to find it "funny'.
I returned yesterday. I have four tickets already. I just don't want the aggravation.
Only 4????
You better catch up, Bob. We have a contest every month
Their behavior is disgusting... but if I say "Your behavior is disgusting!"... I get a ticket.
That's crazy...
... to the point that I had to take a long break to cool off.
I don't intend to allow the (forbidden language) to make me lose my temper. If I can't live with the rules applied to the Front Page, then I won't go there.
What's the record?
I think Sister Mary has the most with 20.
But Raven does her best to catch her
I have rarely had a month with less than 30 tickets. When I do it is because I wasn't posting very much.
I understand. The forbidden language, however, is mostly personal. "Your behavior is disgusting" vs. "That comment is disgusting" are similar but the former makes things personal.
We should be able to rip an argument / comment to shreds using full candor and as long as the criticism is on the content rather than an individual (or indirectly via stereotype or other clever skirts) we should see no tickets.
I understand your argument, but "that comment" carries the person's name. It's hard to say that an insult to "that comment" isn't an insult to the person.
I'd like to see all insults banned.
I'd like to see the CoC's short-form, "Be polite!" rigorously enforced.
Trash memes bring less than zero value to a conversation, for example.
People will always find a way to be insulted. But if someone makes a comment (let's take an extreme example for illustration) such as:
One should be allowed to describe the above comment as misogynistic and despicable (and other choice adjectives). Yeah, there is a person behind the comment, but if we cannot be critical of content without having that ipso facto mean we are attacking the author then there is no point to having a social forum.
The reply: 'you are a despicable misogynist', however, is very different.
Yes... and at the same time, saying, "That's a stupid idea!" is clearly an insult that flows through to the person.
I don't think the truth can be an insult. Your sample sentence is mysogynist. Saying that it's mysogynist isn't an insult because it's the truth.
OTOH, the imprecision of "That's a stupid idea" means that the insult doesn't stop at the sentence, but flows through.
The Moderator is required to make a judgment about the pertinence of the adjective to the object. (Not whether it is true or not, but whether it is reasonably debatable.) If it's pertinent to the object, it stops there. If it's not pertinent, it flows through.
And that is where I would draw the line: the idea is deemed stupid, not the person. So it should not be considered personal and derogatory. Smart people make stupid comments after all.
Tough for a mod to adjudicate.
"Not whether it is true or not, but whether it is reasonably debatable."
Bob....the only ones here on NT that want the aggravation are those who come here only to deliberately cause it......and enjoy it.
I gotta get my Ticket Mojo back in the game.....
I'm still working on a strategy for navigating NT.
- I'll only seed to Groups where egregious misbehavior is not allowed.
- In Front Page seeds, I'll disengage as soon as one of the Usual Suspects comes knocking.
We'll see.
Shameful!
I would gladly take a ticket for that if someone said that women shouldn't be allowed to vote