It was just reported on the news that Donald Trump tweeted a few minutes ago that he and Melania have tested positive for the coronavirus.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
The incubation period can last two weeks according to CDC. Trump has had several packed rallies since then. Little social distancing, few masks. Hope Hicks was seen on Marine One with Trump, close quarters, no masks. Lots of handshaking at the WH.
Trump once said the virus would “go away, like a miracle”, the “end of the pandemic is in sight” Obviously not!
Roy
Trump was on Marine one with Hope Hicks earlier at a fundraiser. Videos show no masks and close quarters on Marine One.
But… this didn’t happen after one of those rally’s, it happened after the debate.
His illness is entirely of his own making, what with all those rallies with almost zero social distancing and his panning of mask wearing. The question now: how many has he irresponsibly infected?
If it’s not clear to him now how serious this pandemic is, this should focus his attention.
Roy
It was just reported on the news that Donald Trump tweeted a few minutes ago that he and Melania have tested positive for the coronavirus.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Thanks for your further responses, Roy.
You write, “Given their much greater propensity for violence, it is in fact logical for politicians to call [far-right groups] out specifically, followed by a general condemnation of all violence.”
Governments have an even greater (by far) propensity for violence, and thus deserve far more “calling out”, wouldn’t you agree? Yes, they have sometimes accomplished significant things, like the moon landing, but this doesn’t mean that they haven’t been destructive and vicious on balance. And I believe humanity would have reached the moon sooner without their harmful effects on human progress (though regrettably there may never be a way to prove this).
Your response to my question about individuals acting as individuals, versus those same individuals acting as members of a group, seems to have somewhat misunderstood the issue I was getting at. I agreed that in some cases individuals clearly do have a far greater impact when acting as members of an organized group, citing police officers as one such example. What’s not clear to me (and what you didn’t address) is how much greater impact, if any, members of the Proud Boys enjoy by virtue of being part of an organized group. Conversely, how much less impact, if any, do people who identify with Antifa have as a result of that group not being a formal organization? In these cases, I don’t think it’s “patently obvious” that the formal status of the former gives members of that group a significant advantage over persons who identify with the latter in terms of their relative impact.
Your assumption that all Nazis are racist seems reasonable, but there is also more to Nazism than racism (virtually none of it good, imho)… In addition to being highly racist, Nazism is also highly nationalist and highly statist. Indeed, many of the ideologies I listed as candidates for most destructive/vicious in history overlap with others on the list. Statism, for instance, encompasses both Nazism and communism (at least in its Marxist-Leninist manifestation), similarly to how racism encompasses Nazism.
Do you really think state-communism (attempts to use the force of the State to impose communism on people) has “produced great universal benefits for humanity”? If so, perhaps you can list some examples, as I’m not seeing it. In sheer numbers, Stalin’s and Mao’s regimes arguably committed more atrocities than Hitler’s. As far as the “worst” atrocities, is deliberate starvation or being worked to death in a frozen gulag – or some of the earlier and arguably even more barbaric tortures inflicted by rulers in the name of religion (people being drawn and quartered, etc.) – any kinder than being killed in a gas chamber?
I agree that proportionality is important when condemning racism, but I think not being racist is even more important. This essentially mirrors the position that Biden took on violent protests during the fake debate – he simply denounced the violence in general (albeit arguably hypocritically – see paragraph below), while Trump attempted to bring proportionality into it with his begrudging response of “yeah Proud Boys, stand down and don’t be violent for now (wait until if/when I need your help overturning the election results), but Antifa is a worse problem than the Proud Boys” (obviously I’m paraphrasing!).
Regarding involuntary taxation, of course it’s underlain by violence. This is true of anything coercive. Violence is still violence even when it is “for the common good”. A gang rape sanctioned by the community is still a rape, and someone who is effectively told “have sex with me or else”, when there is a credible threat behind the “or else” that the victim has no practical means of opposing, has, if they comply, still been raped even if no actual violence was employed. So yes, I am claiming that statists espouse violence. (And not just violence, but aggressive violence, which I think is far worse; I believe that defensive violence, when proportional, can be a legitimate means of resisting the initiation of force.)
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Starchild wrote “Anti-racism should be seen as a neutral, positive value that everyone can and should support, like human rights, free speech, etc”
Amen to that, I agree completely! However, proportionality is critical when condemning racist acts. I think you’ll agree that historically, racist acts have been overwhelmingly against non-Whites. Even presently, as evidenced by the Pittsburgh synagogue shooter, the Christchurch mosque shooter, the violence is still disproportional. Far-right groups are generally far better armed. The ideology they espouse is known to have resulted in the worst human atrocities in history. Given their much greater propensity for violence, it is in fact logical for politicians to call them out specifically, followed by a general condemnation of all violence.
“What if anything gives particular individuals more power acting under the umbrella of a group than the same persons would have acting as unaffiliated individuals?”
I think the answer is patently obvious. A haphazard gathering of rebels is far less effective than an organized and group-trained army. When humans organize, we are capable of building - and destroying - so much more than individually. It is the defining characteristic of our species. An organized group, especially in the internet age, can rally like-minded people under the same banner in a way that individuals cannot. For that reason, yes, it is the organization of police forces that make them potentially so deadly. But organization can be a force for good, if organized correctly and held accountable.
You listed a number of ideologies as potentially the most vicious in history. With the exception of Racism and Nazism (really a subgrouping of Racism in this context), I think all of the others can be argued as having produced great universal benefits for humanity, as well as great destruction. I would argue that in terms of destructiveness (yes, mostly one-sided), Christianity would take the cake, with Communism a close second. But I find Jesus’ universal message of “Love they neighbor as thyself” to be revolutionary. Likewise the racial tolerance at the core of Islam. Racism on the other hand has not produced any universal benefits, certainly not for the oppressed minorities.
I don’t know why you put “statist” there. While organized government was responsible for some of the worst atrocities in history, it is also responsible for some of its greatest achievements, like going to the moon. Plus we are talking about the adherents to these ideologies, are we not? Dictionary.com defines a “statist” as “an advocate of a political system in which the state has substantial centralized control over social and economic affairs.” Are you claiming that “statists” espouse violence? I know you will say that taxation is a form of violence, but I just don’t agree. Perhaps a form of coercion, but coercion for the common good is not the same thing.
Roy
Roy,
My responses are interspersed with your comments below…
Starchild,
Equating violence against Whites with that against minorities is false.
Terms like “whites” and “blacks” are ultimately vague and artificial categories, as previously discussed – racism is racism, and it’s all bad. As is violent aggression. I think we can recognize this at the same time we recognize that members of some groups are more likely on average to be victims of racist aggression in various circumstances, and that historically some ethnic groups have been more victimized by racism than others.
But as I’ve argued before, we can’t be anti-racist by perpetuating racism. The perception (or worse, reality) that anti-racism is being weaponized in the service of a left-wing ideological agenda, dangerously undermines the cause. Anti-racism should be seen as a neutral, positive value that everyone can and should support, like human rights, free speech, etc. If it is instead perceived as being applied in a partisan, non-evenhanded manner, it will erode this important consensus that we should all be working to build. Sadly, I think a good deal of erosion has occurred in recent years.
At present, there are no orchestrated groups dedicated to violence against Whites. On the other hand White Supremacist groups like the Proud Boys, have a documented history of organized violence and rhetoric not just against racial minorities, but gays, women and Jews as well.
I don’t know precisely what you mean by an “orchestrated group”, but whether racists (regardless of their political perspective on the left or right, or their ethnic background as part of a majority or minority ethnic group) are part of a formal organization or not, racism and unjustified (aggressive) violence must be condemned as unacceptable. One question that seems relevant is, What if anything gives particular individuals more power acting under the umbrella of a group than the same persons would have acting as unaffiliated individuals? In the case of police officers, it seems pretty obvious how they can exercise more power and do more harm by being part of an institution, with their institutional affiliation putting lots of tools like special legal powers and expensive equipment at their disposal. But is the same true for a group like Proud Boys? What evidence is there that they are more dangerous, commit more violence, etc., than a group like Antifa or Q-Anon on the basis of their being part of a formal group while the latter are not? How much does the existence of a formal group matter in such cases?
Further, almost every group will deny that they are “dedicated to violence against” persons of a particular ethnic group or groups. I can appreciate that the absence of any formal group doctrines, statements, etc., to the contrary may make it frustratingly difficult to prove the existence of a collective conspiracy by a group like the Proud Boys to commit racist violence. Yet I must insist that the whatever standard we use to evaluate non-State groups must also be applied to governments. In contrast with the age of kings and emperors, peasants and serfs, modern government public relations efforts and the (in some cases illusory) nature of popular rule likewise make it frustratingly difficult for libertarians and anarchists to prove that a government is a collective conspiracy of a violent gang of robbers bent on controlling other people for their own power and profit. Yet I presume that you would feel justified in rejecting such a claim if it were not firmly supported by evidence. What specific evidence exists that the Proud Boys as an organization fit the description of being “dedicated to violence”, any more than, say, a typical police department, or even any more than, say, a group like the Southern Poverty Law Center that advocates the use of State violence against those they have labeled as “white supremacists”?
Their association with the most vicious and destructive ideology in history merits special condemnation.
The comparative viciousness and destructiveness of various ideologies seems very much up for debate. I think respectable arguments could probably be made for any of the following as the most odious, historically:
• statism
• nationalism
• racism
• communism
• Nazism
• Christianity
• IslamAs for “racial sensitivity training”, I just dont see how this is “racist”, at least not according to any definition of racism that I know. There is no evidence that this training discriminates against White people. Acknowledgement of racial differences requiring special police procedures is not evidence of “racism”.
There are many ways in which the kind of material taught in these courses may be racist: The idea that only certain people can be racist, the idea that only certain people can be “privileged”, the idea that you can tell how oppressed or privileged one person is compared with another solely based on each person’s skin color, etc. Even the seemingly benign term “people of color” subtly seeks to divide humanity between people of mostly European ancestry, and everyone else.
Here (in italics) are samples of some of the beliefs that I think are common among many “racial sensitivity training” practitioners and often figures in these programs, from a paper at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/248970747_I_don’t_think_I’m_a_racist_Critical_Race_Theory_teacher_attitudes_and_structural_racism:
“…we introduce CRT [Critical Race Theory], our general theoretical framework, and specifically Harris’
concept of Whiteness as property(!), which we use to analyze our data.”The authors later state that, “one of the attendant rights of Whiteness as a property is the right to retain and
protect individualism.”This seems like an effort by those who don’t like either the concept of property (which goes against the Marxist ideas of the far left), the idea of individualism (which undermines their effort to have people be seen primarily as members of racial and other grievance groups rather than as unique individuals), or persons of European ancestry, to tie these three things together in order to simultaneously malign them all.
“Critical Race Theory [CRT] operates on three basic premises: that racism is pervasive; that racism is permanent; and that
racism must be challenged (Bell 1992; Bernal 2002; Crenshaw, Gotanda, Peller, and Thomas
1995; Delgado and Stefancic 2001; Ladson-Billings and Tate 1995; Lynn, Yosso, Solórzano,
and Parker 2002; Tate 1997).”This to me is crazy. If something is pervasive and permanent, what is the point of challenging it? Clearly the point as they see it is not to solve the problem of racism, a goal they have defined as impossible, but rather to create a state of permanent war in society, pitting some people against others as a means of wielding power. It reminds me of nothing more than the ideology of the communist regime in Cuba, which portrays “The Revolution” as an ongoing, never-ending and as necessary violent struggle against nebulous enemies (half a century after they seized political power).
“Central to CRT is the notion that racism is a pervasive, systemic
condition, not merely an individual pathology. Racism is a vast system that structures our
institutions and our relationships. Second, racism adapts to socio-cultural changes by altering
its expression, but it never diminishes or disappears. Finally, critical race theorists hold that
scholarship that challenges social inequities must take into account systemic racism and must
counter positivist notions of neutral, colorblind inquiry.”In other words, these racist ideologues (who may in some cases be well-meaning in their desire to address injustice and not even recognize the racism of their ideology) are saying scholarship cannot be neutral or colorblind (i.e. must therefore be the opposite, i.e. racist)! They assert that racism never diminishes or disappears, as if no progress against racism has been made since the 1950s, or even since the 1850s, which again is crazy. It completely flies in the face of common sense and what the vast majority of people of all races understand in comparing U.S. society today to how things were during the height of Jim Crow, or during the era of plantation slavery.
The paper linked above (whose authors defend these racist “training” programs) acknowledges that “the notion of White privilege was central to
much of the anti-bias professional development training” , and fails to discuss any other kind of privilege.While the concept of privilege (unearned advantage) is not without merit, in my experience it is often weaponized in service of a specific ideological agenda, rather than being a tool to recognize and analyze all the different ways that privilege may manifest in people’s lives in a neutral, unbiased, scholarly manner – human privilege, extrovert privilege, popularity privilege, wealth privilege, parental privilege (having more competent, compassionate, or “better” parents), narrative privilege (having a more compelling life narrative through no particular merit of one’s own), PC privilege (being elevated based on one’s purported victim status), etc.
Looking at Jo Jorgensen’s platform, I just dont think it will garner much mainstream support. There is plenty to like -but also dislike - by Democrats and Republicans alike. For example, her proposal for police reform and racial justice are admirable, but legalizing all drugs?
When do you think the State has a right to tell you what you can put into your own body, make, or grow, when you aren’t hurting others, and what gives them this right in your opinion? I believe drug use is better treated as a matter of mental and physical health, than as a matter for criminalizing people over how they choose to self-medicate, recreate, or cope in general.
And open borders??
Open borders are already the reality for the vast majority of jurisdictions in the United States (e.g. the border between SF and Daly City, or California and Nevada), and this system generally works well. These many borders generally cause much less harm (especially against those with fewer legal rights in the U.S.), do much less to perpetuate inequality, and result in much less money stolen from the public, than those borders which are not similarly open (e.g. the border between California and Baja California, the border between Texas and Chihuahua, etc.)
I don’t see Republicans and even many moderate Democrats signing up for those.
Even if they don’t agree with consistently applying the Non-Aggression Principle in accord with libertarianism, they may agree with more of the libertarian agenda than what they are getting now from Democrat and Republican politicians, which often isn’t what they want.
Other than getting rid of Trump, healthcare tops most Democrats list of political issues. I think many Democrats would be skeptical of Jo’s reliance on the “free” market to somehow provide universal and affordable healthcare.
Libertarians generally want quality, affordable health care to be universally available. We want patients to be in the driver’s seat, making decisions about their own care in an atmosphere of transparent pricing and abundant choices of treatments and options, including home doctor visits and non-institutional care. I think most Democrats can agree with these values. All that’s needed is an understanding and acceptance that a voluntary, cooperative system will be better at providing them than a coercive, violence-based system. If more of the public dialogue and media coverage was focused in these terms, I think many Democrats would come to agree, because they already tend to be against the use of government violence in circumstances where it is more visible (e.g. war, the death penalty, aggressive policing). In most cases I think they have just not looked at the violent underpinnings of statism.
Abortion is another issue where Jo’s attempt to thread the needle of widespread appeal fails. While she doesn’t believe in abortion, she also doesn’t believe government should be involved or should ban it. Eliminating government protections for fetuses would alienate Evangelicals. Pro-choice liberals on the other hand look to government to uphold reproductive rights and to provide funding.
It’s true that people on both sides of the abortion debate would be called on to compromise: Pro-lifers to recognize abortion as a matter of individual choice, and pro-choicers to stop seeking to force other people to subsidize choices they find immoral.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Roy,
Yeah, Trump predictably and wrongly failed to condemn the ideology of white supremacy. But this was to me was a relatively minor point in the context of all his abundant arrogance, pettiness, dishonesty, etc., being on full display, along with (most troublingly to me) his unequivocal support for law enforcement and open disdain for democracy. Biden after all did not condemn anti-white racism either, although he did at least condemn violence which Trump pointedly did not. But if the president had made a generic anti-violence statement similar to Biden’s, would that have been enough to mollify those upset by his actual response to the Proud Boys question? I think not. And Trump wasn’t wrong in recognizing that a lot of “racial sensitivity training” is itself racist, or in pushing back on the idea that only the racism among groups like the Proud Boys is objectionable enough to deserve condemnation, while “politically correct” racism against those of European descent deserves a pass.
Looking at the larger picture… as long as I’ve been voting, I’ve been hearing that this presidential election (whichever one was currently coming up) is “the most important of our lifetimes”. I don’t expect that mantra to change. And the present is always the right time to do the right thing. As abolitionist William Lloyd Garrison said, “Gradualism in theory is perpetuity in practice.”
It’s simply not true that Jo Jorgensen can’t win. She is on every state ballot, and clearly has the mathematical potential to secure 270 electoral votes. To be clear, I do not expect that result, the way things are going this cycle, but I believe that if U.S. voters actually cast their ballots for the candidate they would prefer to see in the White House, rather than voting their fears, hate, tribalism, and how they expect other people to vote, based on what the mainstream media tells them, she would have an excellent chance of prevailing.
Are voters likely to behave in that manner? Let me put it this way: I think it’s no more unlikely than the prospect that most of her supporters – in large part strongly pro-freedom people like myself – are going to get behind a highly statist candidate like Biden (or Trump for that matter).
Another way to look at it is that she may be one major endorsement away from a win. If Uncle Joe were to drop out and endorse Aunt Jo, I think she would probably do better than he would. If the primary goal really is to deny Donald Trump a second term, why should that option be off the table? Jorgensen would appeal to many Trump supporters as Biden or the typical Democrat never could (see e.g. Steve’s recent response in this thread). Add to those ranks everyone who’s going to vote for the most viable candidate who isn’t Donald Trump, and I’ll bet that’d be a winning coalition.
If Biden and the Democrats predictably reject this, and want the leading alternative candidate and her supporters to get behind him in some sort of unified effort to guarantee the Trump administration is sent packing, they should make Libertarians an attractive offer. Biden missed a big opportunity to appoint someone like Tulsi Gabbard instead of Kamala Harris as his running mate, but there are plenty of potential offers still available – pledge to give Libertarians some cabinet seats and let those appointees pursue libertarian policies in their departments, adopt some important Libertarian priorities that they weren’t going to pursue otherwise, seek to abolish the Commission on Presidential Debates and commit the Democratic Party to fair and open debates henceforward, etc. I can’t guarantee Jo Jorgensen or Libertarians generally would welcome such a deal, but I think it would be groundbreaking enough offer that if presented sincerely, it would get a respectful hearing.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
P.S. – I don’t think Trump is the most powerful person on earth; I think Xi Jinping is. The U.S. government as an institution may be more powerful than the CCP regime, the world’s second most powerful institution, but Trump wields far less power (thank goodness) within the former than Xi does within the latter.
Starchild,
In any normal year, I would agree with you that we need to hear from all candidates, especially third parties. But it should be very clear from yesterday’s debate that we’re not in a normal year. Biden’s performance was certainly no great shakes, but to hear the most powerful person on earth’s completely unhinged vitriol, throwing all standards of decency and normality to the wind, was deeply troubling. Chris Wallace’s question on White Supremacy was a softball that the President could easily have hit out the park. Not only did he not do this, he doubled down with a call to arms to those very people, as Eli pointed out.
The only priority for America now is to get this guy out, and return the country to some sense of normalcy. As Steve said, Jo Jorgensen has zero chance of winning… The only practical effect of a Democrat vote for her is to increase Trump’s chances of getting re-elected. Jorgensen’s time will come during a Biden presidency, after Republicans acknowledge the need to reinvent their party from scratch, giving Democrats a chance to run the table for a while at least. During that time, Americans would be most open to considering alternative political voices.
Roy
My candidate wasn’t invited…
Jorgensen wants to cut the size and spending of government in half, bring overseas troops home, legalize drugs, and reform police and the criminal justice system. “If I could sit around the kitchen table of every American family in this country,” she says, “I would win by a landslide.”
Jo Jorgensen, the Libertarian Party’s nominee, is the only presidential candidate besides Donald Trump and Joe Biden who is on the ballot in all 50 states. One recent poll has her pulling 5 percent nationally, and another has her at 4 percent—perhaps enough to cover the spread between the president and his Democratic challenger.
Who is supporting the 63-year-old Clemson psychologist? Jorgensen tells Reason’s Nick Gillespie that she’s drawing “people who believe that they should be able to make their own decisions. People who believe that they should have a right to decide their child’s education, which health care they want and which health care they don’t want, [how] to control their retirement dollars, and that they should be able to make a choice of whether or not they wear a mask…” (Jorgensen herself masks up in public spaces and in businesses that request customers wear them.)
Jorgensen wants to cut the size and spending of government in half, bring overseas troops home, legalize drugs, and reform police and the criminal justice system. “If I could sit around the kitchen table of every American family in this country,” she says, “I would win by a landslide.”
Responding to the canard that voting for a third-party candidate is a wasted vote, Jorgensen says that voting for a major-party candidate out of tribal loyalty is the true missed opportunity. To Republicans, she says, “If you live in a solidly red state [and] and you don’t like what Donald Trump has been doing, if you don’t like the bigger government he’s given you, then voting for him is a wasted vote.” Her message to “Democrats, especially Democrats in California, in New York,” is similar: “Don’t vote for Joe Biden. If you want more war, if you want more of your rights taken away, if you think that you have a right to have access to marijuana, a vote for him as a wasted vote, because he’s not going to [give you] what you really want.”
More on video at the link above.
If the exclusionary, anti-democratic nature of the debate wasn’t reason enough to call it a “fake debate”, there’s also the fact, disclosed during the farce, that the candidates agreed beforehand on which questions they would be asked. Yet even with the advantage of knowing the terrain in advance, they both managed to come off looking poorly. Not that I think very many people were expecting to see anything particularly edifying…
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
Maybe you two should have showed up in the zoom debate tonight to find out.
Good question, Eli. Something about “Antifa” being worse, even though it doesn’t exist as an organization?
And chilling words from our wannabe dictator-in-chief. Ludicrous that some people think Biden is worse. Biden made it clear he would concede if he lost.
Roy
So. Trump told the white superemecist group The Proud Boys to “Stand By.” Wonder how Paul’s gonna try to spin this.
Sent from my iPhone
me too
Me too.
I’ll log in after the debate ends.
Best,
Patricia
Sent from my iPhone
Peter, I’d prefer watching the Trump-Biden debate on my own, to focus completely on what is being said and then later to review some of the debate text. Chatting and reading comments during the debate would distract me too much from listening to whatever comes next. Plus I’d like to discuss the debate later in the week (like the day after), to allow some time to digest the experience and do some follow-up (e.g., misleading framing, fact-checking, etc.). That said, it’s your decision and many may prefer your approach.
Deborah
OK, so my announcement will just say that we’ll have a watch party for
the Trump-Biden thing, during which people can post comments in Zoom
chat, and then after that we’ll talk about it until everyone leaves.
My original idea was to have the YouTube stream shared within Zoom.
But then I realized that anyone who has Zoom will certainly also have
YouTube, and can watch it in a separate YouTube window if they’re not
already watching it on TV. If we do NOT share the YouTube stream on
Zoom, then we’ll be able to see each other on Zoom’s gallery (a.k.a.
“Brady Bunch”) view, with gestures, facial expressions, MAGA hats,
etc., which isn’t possible if the YouTube stream is shared in the main
Zoom window. So I propose NOT sharing the YouTube stream within Zoom.
I think the only people who would have difficulty with this
arrangement would be those using a tablet or something like that that
lets them see only one window at a time, and don’t have a separate TV
or other device to watch on. But I think the number of people in such
circumstances would be extremely small.
Peter
Why don’t we have a post-debate discussion of the 9/29 debate and then have
a discussion of a wider set of candidates the following week? (I’d prefer
it the day after)
When we spoke of the possibility of a post-debate debate at the last Zoom
meeting, the idea was in part to exercise learning and persuasion skills on
behalf of a position one may not actually hold (hence, speakers would
pre-commit to their side of the motion prior to the actual debate. Ideally,
that particular SFDebate would take place a day or two after the
Biden-Trump debate (to allow more prep/learning time). But if others want a
general discussion, that’s ok too.
When I read that headline, "America Doesn��t Have Real Presidential
Debates, But It Should", I interpreted it as suggesting that there are
countries other than America where there are presidential elections
and real presidential debates (according to the writer’s definition).
But then I read the article and found it had no references to any
such existing thing.
Starchild, you suggest "an airing of all the candidates on the ballot
prior to a discussion". OK, but when? And what? We’re talking
about a week from now. I should post an announcement soon of the
Biden-Trump event, and I don’t know what you want me to include about
your proposed “airing” of other candidates.
Earlier you named Don Blankenship, but he’s not actually one of the
canadidates on the ballot in California.
https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/statewide-elections/2020-general/certified-list-of-candidates.pdf
And oh yes, be sure to let us know of any debates between the candidates
for the 17th state assembly district.
A discussion after a real presidential debate sounds good.
https://www.counterpunch.org/2020/08/13/america-doesnt-have-real-presidential-debates-but-it-should/
If the cartel candidates once again show themselves opposed to
upholding democracy and afraid to debate their non-cartel challengers, and
there is no real debate to talk about, an airing of all the candidates on
the ballot prior to a discussion might be the next best thing.
Love & Liberty,
((( starchild )))
A post debate discussion sounds good.
Roy
Sent from Yahoo Mail on Android
Good idea Peter! I vote for a discussion post debate.
The Trump-Biden debate will be next Tuesday the 29th from 6:00 to 7:30
p.m.
our time. As we’ve discussed, I can set up a Zoom session and share my
screen with the live stream, which is here:
Participants will be muted but can make comments in the Chat, until
we unmute after the debate ends.
Posted by: Starchild sfdreamer@earthlink.net
Reply via web post | • | Reply to sender | • | Reply to group | • | Start a New Topic | • | Messages in this topic (2) |
- | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
• Privacy • Unsubscribe • Terms of Use
.