Yes, when he focuses on the right things like the economy (which is a very high priority for me), he can do a good job.   Conversely, when he makes derogatory ethnic remarks to fuel a certain portion of his fan base, he can be very dangerous.  I'm also against rights to own semi-automatic weapons but right now, our idiotic mass shootings have been down as a result of home isolation so I guess that's a good thing.

Or when he states that democrats want more death to win an election...fun times.

No they don't come right out and say they want more deaths, but they smile in joy whenever they mention an increase in US deaths.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Or when he states that democrats want more death to win an election...fun times.

No they don't come right out and say they want more deaths, but they smile in joy whenever they mention an increase in US deaths.

Gotta lump you in with CrownyTrump, MBJ. The above statement is truly disheartening, even coming from you.

---

I'll play you in ping pong. 

No they don't come right out and say they want more deaths, but they smile in joy whenever they mention an increase in US deaths.

Gotta lump you in with CrownyTrump, MBJ. The above statement is truly disheartening, even coming from you.

Do you disagree? Have you not noticed the delight in their reporting of US deaths while they find a way to blame it on Trump?

---

My guess is the socialist communist "progressive" democrat VP candidate is going to be Gretchen Whitmer.  She has been in the news quite a bit lately and is loved by the socialist communist "progressive" media.  Meanwhile I think that Hillary is waiting to swoop in and "save" the socialist communist democrat party.

They're both in Biden's binders full of women.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

NY just added more than 1700 previously unreported nursing home deaths.  They are either padding the numbers or purposely infecting the elderly.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/...sing-homes

"AND"

They did force nursing homes to take back infected people, so no surprise that there have been a lot of additional deaths. I'm guessing that retiree deaths help reduce the shortfall in NY's pension fund.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

No they don't come right out and say they want more deaths, but they smile in joy whenever they mention an increase in US deaths.

Gotta lump you in with CrownyTrump, MBJ. The above statement is truly disheartening, even coming from you.

Come on Gabe, you're better than that.  Have you watched any of the MSM?  News4jax keeps a running total and breathlessly reports any new deaths.  Tell me.  Why is The House not going back to work while The Senate is?  Safety?  Or the fact that it gives Nancy Pelosi more power?

Why are deaths covered so much but not people that have recovered or have tested asymptomatic?  What about the suppression of good news as opposed the the new number of deaths?

Why is it not being reported that most deaths come from people that had pre-existing conditions rather than the "average person"?

Regarding the topic of this thread, I rule out Michelle Obama (liberals' wet dream) as well as the extreme socialists (Elizabeth "Pocahontas" Warren).

Biden made a very big mistake (in my eyes) when he said that his running mate would be a woman.  He's going to use the typical leftist ideology to select his running mate (gender vs. qualification).  He narrows the possible choices in half right there.  Next he will probably (my opinion) narrow it down to a minority so it cuts possible choices down even further.  It's typical liberal thinking.... select somebody based on identity rather than qualifications.

Many on the left want the selection to be Michelle Obama not because she has any qualifications whatsoever, but because she "fills in the blanks".

To many on the left, election of a President is more about "popularity".

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Gabe, everyone suffers from bias, you would agree to that, right? I don't think he's implicitly incorrect in his assumption. In my opinion, this is not dissimilar from the roll-out of universal health care. Conservative politicians wouldn't actively "wish" for people to get sick and die. It would be political suicide to do so, but that doesn't mean they wanted the system to succeed. It clashes with their world view. They don't trust it. Can you not agree that this, at the very least, MIGHT be a possibility for some democratic politicians? Anyone who is a socialist (and let's face it, it's a growing force in the democratic party) does not trust our capitalist system. They think it's inherently broken. Whether they are correct or not is irrelevant. They enjoy the deaths, not because they want individuals to die, but, rather, that it creates justification for changing policy that fits their world view. This shouldn't be surprising, nor should it be a reach to suggest this is a possibility.

Additionally, there are radicals (on both sides) who do literally wish for their opposition to die for no other reason that political differences. I frequent a progressive message board and have, on more than one occasion, had it made clear that they hoped I die of Coronavirus because I think the Sweden model might be the most effective way of handling this. I have heard it said, on more than one occasion, that they hope the red states die of coronavirus. Now, this is the hardcore base, so we can take that with a grain of salt, but does that at least open up the probability that some politicians could be aligned with that kind of thinking? This should not be taken to mean that ALL democratic politicians share these thoughts, but, rather, there is at least a very high probability that some do. The more there is a socialist "creep" in the democratic party, the more I think it's fair to suggest that there is an active wish for any capitalist system to fail (by any means necessary), because it directly conflicts with a socialist world view.

Everything does not need to be explicitly stated.

Democrats and Republicans can share a world view, more or less, but not if socialism is in the mix. This is going to be a reoccurring theme for a while.

---

Side note: I don't believe Elizabeth Warren isn't a socialist. I think she's an opportunistic politician, and would moderate super quickly if she was the Presidential nominee.

Also, to the conservatives, I don't think the media highlights death as part of some great conspiracy or socialist agenda, I think they do it to make money. Death sells. It's why were talking about Giant hornets. It's why we have wall to wall hurricane coverage now. Coronavirus is no different.

---

To many on the left, election of a President is more about "popularity".

You gotta win the election.
So you gotta be popular.
Everyone wants to be popular.  Left, right, everyone.
Some of Trump's supporters, at every stage, came to him simply because he was already popular with others.
And elite politicians, whether novices like Trump or veterans like Biden, have to try to get as popular as possible.
Whether they have any clue what the people would actually like, that's another story.
Ivory tower academic elites on both sides tend to have no idea at all what ordinary folks want.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Perhaps not the right thread, but here we go. Channel 4 keeps posting a pic of Desantis. Idk if it’s an election year for him or not. Usually they post a pic and quote from a Governor, congressman or mayor with a smile or the typical pic of said person with the flags behind them. Channel 4 keeps putting a pic of RD that makes him look either A. Tired or B. Like he has no clue what’s happening. I thought better of channel 4. But now I know they are too part of the CNN’s of the world

---

Gabe, everyone suffers from bias, you would agree to that, right? I don't think he's implicitly incorrect in his assumption. In my opinion, this is not dissimilar from the roll-out of universal health care. Conservative politicians wouldn't actively "wish" for people to get sick and die. It would be political suicide to do so, but  that doesn't mean they wanted the system to succeed. It clashes with their world view. They don't trust it. Can you not agree that this, at the very least, MIGHT be a possibility for some democratic politicians? Anyone who is a socialist (and let's face it, it's a growing force in the democratic party) does not trust our capitalist system. They think it's inherently broken. Whether they are correct or not is irrelevant. They enjoy the deaths, not because they want individuals to die, but, rather, that it creates justification for changing policy that fits their world view. This shouldn't be surprising, nor should it be a reach to suggest this is a possibility.

Additionally, there are radicals (on both sides) who do literally wish for their opposition to die for no other reason that political differences. I frequent a progressive message board and have, on more than one occasion, had it made clear that they hoped I die of Coronavirus because I think the Sweden model might be the most effective way of handling this. I have heard it said, on more than one occasion, that they hope the red states die of coronavirus. Now, this is the hardcore base, so we can take that with a grain of salt, but does that at least open up the probability that some politicians could be aligned with that kind of thinking? This should not be taken to mean that ALL democratic politicians share these thoughts, but, rather, there is at least a very high probability that some do. The more there is  a socialist "creep" in the democratic party, the more I think it's fair to suggest that there is an active wish for any capitalist system to fail (by any means necessary), because it directly conflicts with a socialist world view.

Everything does not need to be explicitly stated.

Democrats and Republicans can share a world view, more or less, but not if socialism is in the mix. This is going to be a reoccurring theme for a while.

---

Side note: I don't believe Elizabeth Warren isn't a socialist. I think she's an opportunistic politician, and would moderate super quickly if she was the Presidential nominee.

Also, to the conservatives, I don't think the media highlights death as part of some great conspiracy or socialist agenda, I think they do it to make money. Death sells. It's why were talking about Giant hornets. It's why we have wall to wall hurricane coverage now. Coronavirus is no different.

I think Gabe's point is more that ascribing the motives of the very worst subset of your opponents to all of your opponents is both innaccurate and rude.
We can't treat political opponents as enemies unless we are okay with turning politics into war.
But it's just so so easy from behind the keyboard and the username...

As for "it conflicts with their world view"...
People who get paid to write for fancy websites use the word worldview as a more respectable synonym for ideology. They both get totally revised every 8 to 10 years. Maybe you haven't been around long enough to notice.
Obamacare borrowed more from a framework first created by the heritage foundation in 1993 than it did from any thing in Hillary Clinton's plan that came out that same year. Did the entire American conservative worldview turn on its head that much in just 16 years? Worldview is one of those words you've got to watch out for. One of those sneaky words that people use when they are trying to get you over the hump from simply trusting them or identifying with them to outsourcing your thinking to them. "oh you already said you agree with me about A, well A is part of a world view that would lead any reasonable person to also agree with B and C".

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Gabe, everyone suffers from bias, you would agree to that, right? I don't think he's implicitly incorrect in his assumption. In my opinion, this is not dissimilar from the roll-out of universal health care. Conservative politicians wouldn't actively "wish" for people to get sick and die. It would be political suicide to do so, but  that doesn't mean they wanted the system to succeed. It clashes with their world view. They don't trust it. Can you not agree that this, at the very least, MIGHT be a possibility for some democratic politicians? Anyone who is a socialist (and let's face it, it's a growing force in the democratic party) does not trust our capitalist system. They think it's inherently broken. Whether they are correct or not is irrelevant. They enjoy the deaths, not because they want individuals to die, but, rather, that it creates justification for changing policy that fits their world view. This shouldn't be surprising, nor should it be a reach to suggest this is a possibility.

Additionally, there are radicals (on both sides) who do literally wish for their opposition to die for no other reason that political differences. I frequent a progressive message board and have, on more than one occasion, had it made clear that they hoped I die of Coronavirus because I think the Sweden model might be the most effective way of handling this. I have heard it said, on more than one occasion, that they hope the red states die of coronavirus. Now, this is the hardcore base, so we can take that with a grain of salt, but does that at least open up the probability that some politicians could be aligned with that kind of thinking? This should not be taken to mean that ALL democratic politicians share these thoughts, but, rather, there is at least a very high probability that some do. The more there is  a socialist "creep" in the democratic party, the more I think it's fair to suggest that there is an active wish for any capitalist system to fail (by any means necessary), because it directly conflicts with a socialist world view.

Everything does not need to be explicitly stated.

Democrats and Republicans can share a world view, more or less, but not if socialism is in the mix. This is going to be a reoccurring theme for a while.

---

Side note: I don't believe Elizabeth Warren isn't a socialist. I think she's an opportunistic politician, and would moderate super quickly if she was the Presidential nominee.

Also, to the conservatives, I don't think the media highlights death as part of some great conspiracy or socialist agenda, I think they do it to make money. Death sells. It's why were talking about Giant hornets. It's why we have wall to wall hurricane coverage now. Coronavirus is no different.

I think Gabe's point is more that ascribing the motives of the very worst subset of your opponents to all of your opponents is both innaccurate and rude.
We can't treat political opponents as enemies unless we are okay with turning politics into war.
But it's just so so easy from behind the keyboard and the username...

The guy who is single handedly responsible for the removal of the thumbs up/down feature on the message board is flexing his cyber muscles at "keyboard warriors".

That is gold. Pure gold.

---

You heard it here first, Joe Biden will NOT be the nominee...…...

---

Instead of a sign that says "Do Not Disturb" I need one that says "Already Disturbed Proceed With Caution."

I think Gabe's point is more that ascribing the motives of the very worst subset of your opponents to all of your opponents is both innaccurate and rude.
We can't treat political opponents as enemies unless we are okay with turning politics into war.
But it's just so so easy from behind the keyboard and the username...

The guy who is single handedly responsible for the removal of the thumbs up/down feature on the message board is flexing his cyber muscles at "keyboard warriors".

That is gold. Pure gold.

I never asked any mod to remove any button.
Someone else asked the mods to remove it.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Gabe, everyone suffers from bias, you would agree to that, right? I don't think he's implicitly incorrect in his assumption. In my opinion, this is not dissimilar from the roll-out of universal health care. Conservative politicians wouldn't actively "wish" for people to get sick and die. It would be political suicide to do so, but  that doesn't mean they wanted the system to succeed. It clashes with their world view. They don't trust it. Can you not agree that this, at the very least, MIGHT be a possibility for some democratic politicians? Anyone who is a socialist (and let's face it, it's a growing force in the democratic party) does not trust our capitalist system. They think it's inherently broken. Whether they are correct or not is irrelevant. They enjoy the deaths, not because they want individuals to die, but, rather, that it creates justification for changing policy that fits their world view. This shouldn't be surprising, nor should it be a reach to suggest this is a possibility.

Additionally, there are radicals (on both sides) who do literally wish for their opposition to die for no other reason that political differences. I frequent a progressive message board and have, on more than one occasion, had it made clear that they hoped I die of Coronavirus because I think the Sweden model might be the most effective way of handling this. I have heard it said, on more than one occasion, that they hope the red states die of coronavirus. Now, this is the hardcore base, so we can take that with a grain of salt, but does that at least open up the probability that some politicians could be aligned with that kind of thinking? This should not be taken to mean that ALL democratic politicians share these thoughts, but, rather, there is at least a very high probability that some do. The more there is  a socialist "creep" in the democratic party, the more I think it's fair to suggest that there is an active wish for any capitalist system to fail (by any means necessary), because it directly conflicts with a socialist world view.

Everything does not need to be explicitly stated.

Democrats and Republicans can share a world view, more or less, but not if socialism is in the mix. This is going to be a reoccurring theme for a while.

---

Side note: I don't believe Elizabeth Warren isn't a socialist. I think she's an opportunistic politician, and would moderate super quickly if she was the Presidential nominee.

Also, to the conservatives, I don't think the media highlights death as part of some great conspiracy or socialist agenda, I think they do it to make money. Death sells. It's why were talking about Giant hornets. It's why we have wall to wall hurricane coverage now. Coronavirus is no different.

I think Gabe's point is more that ascribing the motives of the very worst subset of your opponents to all of your opponents is both innaccurate and rude.
We can't treat political opponents as enemies unless we are okay with turning politics into war.
But it's just so so easy from behind the keyboard and the username...

As for "it conflicts with their world view"...
People who get paid to write for fancy websites use the word worldview as a more respectable synonym for ideology. They both get totally revised every 8 to 10 years. Maybe you haven't been around long enough to notice.
Obamacare borrowed more from a framework first created by the heritage foundation in 1993 than it did from any thing in Hillary Clinton's plan that came out that same year. Did the entire American conservative worldview turn on its head that much in just 16 years? Worldview is one of those words you've got to watch out for. One of those sneaky words that people use when they are trying to get you over the hump from simply trusting them or identifying with them to outsourcing your thinking to them. "oh you already said you agree with me about A, well A is part of a world view that would lead any reasonable person to also agree with B and C".

You should let Gabe speak for himself. 

World view is not a sneaky word. I prefer to use "world view" to "ideology" when speaking broadly. I like to use the word ideology when we are speaking about something that is or should be clearly defined. There is a way in which all of us perceive the world that affects our rationale. It's important for people to examine the circumstances that helped shaped the way they think about the world. Our biases can cause us to believe we are making logical choices when we are not. 

For example, at some point in your life, you started thinking that because you were able to google information that you were also able to interpret it. This created a bias within yourself that believes you contribute something useful to the conversation when you don't. Until you can acknowledge that you're a pretentious blowhard, you're going to have this warped view of the way you are interacting with others. Whether you have democratic or republican ideologies, all of us will continue to be tormented, because you are insufferable. Unfortunately, no amount of evidence will convince you this is the truth. We're just going to have to keep reading your inane drivel, while you go on having a high opinion of yourself. Everyone loses, really. You see why examining your world view is important?

---

You heard it here first, Joe Biden will NOT be the nominee...…...

Well, I posted that here like two weeks ago, so I guess you're technically right?

---

I think Gabe's point is more that ascribing the motives of the very worst subset of your opponents to all of your opponents is both innaccurate and rude.
We can't treat political opponents as enemies unless we are okay with turning politics into war.
But it's just so so easy from behind the keyboard and the username...

As for "it conflicts with their world view"...
People who get paid to write for fancy websites use the word worldview as a more respectable synonym for ideology. They both get totally revised every 8 to 10 years. Maybe you haven't been around long enough to notice.
Obamacare borrowed more from a framework first created by the heritage foundation in 1993 than it did from any thing in Hillary Clinton's plan that came out that same year. Did the entire American conservative worldview turn on its head that much in just 16 years? Worldview is one of those words you've got to watch out for. One of those sneaky words that people use when they are trying to get you over the hump from simply trusting them or identifying with them to outsourcing your thinking to them. "oh you already said you agree with me about A, well A is part of a world view that would lead any reasonable person to also agree with B and C".

You should let Gabe speak for himself. 

World view is not a sneaky word. I prefer to use "world view" to "ideology" when speaking broadly. I like to use the word ideology when we are speaking about something that is or should be clearly defined. There is a way in which all of use perceive the world that affects our rationale. It's important for people to examine the circumstances that helped shaped the way they think about the world. Our biases can cause us to believe we are making logical choices when we are not. 

For example, at some point in your life, you started thinking that because you were able to google information that you were also able to interpret it. This created a bias within yourself that believes you contribute something useful to the conversation when you don't. Until you can acknowledge that you're a pretentious blowhard, you're going to have this warped view of the way you are interacting with others. Whether you have democratic or republican ideologies, all of us will continue to be tormented, because you are insufferable. Unfortunately, no amount of evidence will convince you this the truth. We're just going to have to keep reading your inane drivel, while you go on having a high opinion of yourself. Everyone loses, really. You see why examining your world view is important?

You may not think that you are being sneaky, but you probably picked up that word "worldview" from people who are sneaky.
"Practical men who believe themselves to be quite exempt from any intellectual influence, are usually the slaves of some defunct economist." -John Maynard Keynes

I want to stay on topic, you want to talk about me.
This is the politics sub forum of the least popular team in the NFL. If any of us think anything we say here will influence anything at all, that's basically the definition of pretentious.
You ought to look in the mirror.
We're all pretentious blowhards.
Maybe you think that you can improve things by scaring people away with insults. You can't. This is already a very small community. It'll just get smaller. You get rid of me, it will not satisfy you. The next person who disagrees with you will be the next pretentious blowhard.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

I don't do that to people. I do it to paid, Russian trolls. I'll respect you again when you get off the clock.

---

World view is not a sneaky word. I prefer to use "world view" to "ideology" when speaking broadly. I like to use the word ideology when we are speaking about something that is or should be clearly defined. There is a way in which all of use perceive the world that affects our rationale. It's important for people to examine the circumstances that helped shaped the way they think about the world. Our biases can cause us to believe we are making logical choices when we are not. 

For example, at some point in your life, you started thinking that because you were able to google information that you were also able to interpret it. This created a bias within yourself that believes you contribute something useful to the conversation when you don't. Until you can acknowledge that you're a pretentious blowhard, you're going to have this warped view of the way you are interacting with others. Whether you have democratic or republican ideologies, all of us will continue to be tormented, because you are insufferable. Unfortunately, no amount of evidence will convince you this the truth. We're just going to have to keep reading your inane drivel, while you go on having a high opinion of yourself. Everyone loses, really. You see why examining your world view is important?

Extremely well put.

---

"You do your own thing in your own time. You should be proud."

No they don't come right out and say they want more deaths, but they smile in joy whenever they mention an increase in US deaths.

Gotta lump you in with CrownyTrump, MBJ. The above statement is truly disheartening, even coming from you.

I'm not very active here but I have been a reader for at this point, almost half my life. You might as well lump me into this category as well.

Look at everything that the dems do. Immigration, welfare, even politicizing good things for the US such as the killing of Soleimani or meeting with Kun Jung Un. Even when the economy is doing well they find some way to make it sound bad by claiming that only the rich are getting richer. 

I travel frequently, I visit Texas several times a year for work purposes. Visit Houston and drive through the less desirable parts of Houston, of Miami, even a city as north as Chicago. These cities have enormous of what appears to be illegal immigrant communities, and I only assume at least partially illegal since we allow 1 million immigrants per year and the numbers just don't add up for all of these people to be legal. Drive through these areas and tell me that somehow immigration and open borders are overall beneficial for this country, these areas are a reflection of the people that live there which are a reflection of the place that they came from, and it ain't pretty. It feels like you are in Mexico. I'm not sure if you have areas that you grew up in that you have now visited that now look like [BLEEP]. I sure as hell do and once again these areas now look like Mexico. This is true of basically every large city that I have visited, outside of a certain few states like Tennessee, Indiana, and Kentucky. Believe what you want but I don't see this as a positive for this country. 

You are absolutely kidding yourself if you think that the Democrats do not want what is best for this country, in order to gain power. These people are literally the epitome of evil, they will go where a person of any morals will not go. They are the biggest hypocrites on the face of earth, there are countless examples with perhaps the Joe Biden Tara Reade thing being one of the best and the most recent. They will stop at nothing to gain power, they are persistent, look at medical marijuana. On the ballot in 2012, gets voted down. 2016, ouh whats this? Medical marijuana on the ballot again? It passes.

---

World view is not a sneaky word. I prefer to use "world view" to "ideology" when speaking broadly. I like to use the word ideology when we are speaking about something that is or should be clearly defined. There is a way in which all of use perceive the world that affects our rationale. It's important for people to examine the circumstances that helped shaped the way they think about the world. Our biases can cause us to believe we are making logical choices when we are not. 

For example, at some point in your life, you started thinking that because you were able to google information that you were also able to interpret it. This created a bias within yourself that believes you contribute something useful to the conversation when you don't. Until you can acknowledge that you're a pretentious blowhard, you're going to have this warped view of the way you are interacting with others. Whether you have democratic or republican ideologies, all of us will continue to be tormented, because you are insufferable. Unfortunately, no amount of evidence will convince you this the truth. We're just going to have to keep reading your inane drivel, while you go on having a high opinion of yourself. Everyone loses, really. You see why examining your world view is important?

Extremely well put.

Ya see this, Gabe, Marty? They stick together.

---

My fellow southpaw Mark Brunell will probably always be my favorite Jaguar.

Lol

---

You heard it here first, Joe Biden will NOT be the nominee...…...

Unless Biden becomes seriously ill within the next few months, there would be so much controversy not nominating him that the Dems have not other choice but to nomimate Biden who essentially won in a landslide (after taking South Carolina).

Assuming your long shot prediction is correct, who would the Dems nominate in place of Biden?

---