|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
United Kingdom13775 Posts
On February 21 2020 00:33 Sent. wrote:
Buttigieg's attacks on Klobuchar made sense to me. He needs to knock her out and take over her supporters as fast as possible so everyone will have to take him seriously because of his double digit support. I think she looked worse than him in the debate ("Are you saying I'm dumb?"), though largely thanks to the moderators who went easy on Buttigieg (no tough questions and tolerating his interjections) and hard on Klobuchar (president of Mexico question).
She definitely didn’t look good from that exchange, but he clearly looked like a petty bully. That goes double for that more viable candidates like Warren were willing to stand up for her.
I expect this to drag both of them down in the end.
|
On February 20 2020 23:04 Nebuchad wrote:
Until further developments Bernie is running away with this and any other conclusion just seems weird to me based on the data that I've seen. Biden isn't going back up from this, he'll need to earn it and I don't know that he has it in him, Warren might get a few points since she had a strong performance but apart from that the front runner is reinforced. Not claiming he's a lock to get more than 50%, it could still be brokered obviously but the notion that Biden has a better chance of finishing ahead sounds like fantasy.
Yeah I disagree with that conclusion based on polling data. (and noting how it played out on the Iowa and NH results) Part of the problem is "frontrunner" is just as much a product of media interpretation and reaction than being based on any hard polling evidence.
On aggregate polling, Biden's still in good shape for states like Texas, Carolinas and as a whole the super Tuesday states. I think you'll agree with me that Bloomberg is A: going to nosedive and B: ideologically closest to Biden.
All of the states that have flashy polling numbers that Bloomberg wont actually vote for another few weeks. He's dead in the water man. Bloomberg supporters will subsume under the Biden banner and even if you dock a few percentage points over to Sanders he still wont perform well in the south.
Don't get me wrong Sanders still has a good chance, but the notion that he's running away with this is wayy too optimistic.
|
Debate going terribly for Bloomberg was best case scenario for Bernie since it means Biden and Buttigieg are still viable. I think it is unlikely that a centrist king will be crowned before super Tuesday. If they are all still running by Super Tuesday, I think that's gg.
|
On February 21 2020 03:28 Mohdoo wrote:
Debate going terribly for Bloomberg was best case scenario for Bernie since it means Biden and Buttigieg are still viable. .
Can you elaborate on this? Because I don't see any universe where Bloomberg doing poorly helps Bernie one iota.
Bidens led a lot of the supertuesday and southern states by a healthy margin and that did not stop untill Bloomberg challenged him in recent polls. Do you honestly think that an ex bloomberg supporter in California, Texas or South Carolina is going to switch over to Bernie Sanders and not to Biden?
Also you realize that a large portion of the post super Tuesday states are less progressive than the contests leading up to it? The thing I don't get is how people Biden loses the long game by fiat, like sure he does lose steam, but he's not going to lose enough steam to lose Florida or a lot of the states after super tuesday.
|
On February 21 2020 03:19 Gorgonoth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 20 2020 23:04 Nebuchad wrote:
Until further developments Bernie is running away with this and any other conclusion just seems weird to me based on the data that I've seen. Biden isn't going back up from this, he'll need to earn it and I don't know that he has it in him, Warren might get a few points since she had a strong performance but apart from that the front runner is reinforced. Not claiming he's a lock to get more than 50%, it could still be brokered obviously but the notion that Biden has a better chance of finishing ahead sounds like fantasy. Yeah I disagree with that conclusion based on polling data. (and noting how it played out on the Iowa and NH results) Part of the problem is "frontrunner" is just as much a product of media interpretation and reaction than being based on any hard polling evidence. On aggregate polling, Biden's still in good shape for states like Texas, Carolinas and as a whole the super Tuesday states. I think you'll agree with me that Bloomberg is A: going to nosedive and B: ideologically closest to Biden. All of the states that have flashy polling numbers that Bloomberg wont actually vote for another few weeks. He's dead in the water man. Bloomberg supporters will subsume under the Biden banner and even if you dock a few percentage points over to Sanders he still wont perform well in the south. Don't get me wrong Sanders still has a good chance, but the notion that he's running away with this is wayy too optimistic.
I think Bloomberg and Buttigeig are the closest ideology wise, and that plays out in voter 2nd choice preferences.
As for Bloomberg, his supporters are at 29% Biden, 20% Bernie, 20% Buttigeig for 2nd choice support, so there's only some minimal loss to Bernie's standing vs Biden if Bloomberg loses a bunch of his support, but it means that Biden and Buttigeig both still stay in the race. Source: https://morningconsult.com/2020-democratic-primary/
Honestly Bernie is pretty high up as a 2nd choice candidate, it's not really easy to tell what impact any particular candidate's fluctuations would have on his standing and if you believe the head to head match-up polling everyone but Sanders & X dropping out would be good for Sanders.
|
The assumption that Bloomberg will lose all support because of this and therefore Biden surges back is not realistic. More likely Bloomberg's rise will be stopped, he'll lose a couple points, but he'll still maintain presence and further divide the moderate republican vote. The odds of him continuing to gain ground are better than the odds of him losing all of his support back to Biden.
|
On February 21 2020 04:36 Gorgonoth wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2020 03:28 Mohdoo wrote:
Debate going terribly for Bloomberg was best case scenario for Bernie since it means Biden and Buttigieg are still viable. . Can you elaborate on this? Because I don't see any universe where Bloomberg doing poorly helps Bernie one iota. Bidens led a lot of the supertuesday and southern states by a healthy margin and that did not stop untill Bloomberg challenged him in recent polls. Do you honestly think that an ex bloomberg supporter in California, Texas or South Carolina is going to switch over to Bernie Sanders and not to Biden? Also you realize that a large portion of the post super Tuesday states are less progressive than the contests leading up to it? The thing I don't get is how people Biden loses the long game by fiat, like sure he does lose steam, but he's not going to lose enough steam to lose Florida or a lot of the states after super tuesday.
It isn't about Bernie gaining, it is about preventing the oligarch-sympathizers from uniting. It is still taboo to support Bernie, just like it was for Trump. If Bernie wins super tuesday, which all signs indicate he will, it will legitimize him as a candidate. Even NBC is starting to wonder if Bernie isn't satan.
Bloomberg needed a decisive victory to make a case for Biden and Buttigieg conceding. As things stand, The 3 B's have no reason to drop. It is still a competitive match between the 3. So long as their match continues, Bernie will continue to run away with the primary. If Bernie wins Super Tuesday, it will officially be acceptable to support him.
|
Given that news outlets here in Michigan (mlive and the Detroit free press, specifically) already have him as both the Dem primary front runner and a head to head winner against Trump, I’d say it’s acceptable to support Bernie here and has been since he won the state primary back in ‘16 
|
|
|
Canada8988 Posts
There's certainly a lack of support from political pundits behind Sanders compared to the wider crowd, but I wouldn't say it's taboo realy to support him. I can't say I watch american news on tv, but in the press if there's someone who it is taboo to support it's Bloomberg, I don't think I read any endorsement of him outside, of "look I don't like him, but he might saddly be out best shot at winning". Not that I'm complaning lol.
|
Canada5565 Posts
On February 21 2020 03:03 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2020 01:33 Xxio wrote:On February 20 2020 14:49 JimmiC wrote:On February 20 2020 14:26 Xxio wrote:On February 20 2020 12:36 Wegandi wrote:
It's funny hearing Bernie talk about the rich buying votes when all his plans are essentially, here's some free shit, $$$, vote for me. There's no pretense this debate is anything else. Every candidate is in a game of one upmanship to who can use the Government to give away the most shit. It's hilarious how transparent it is. There's almost no substantive and factual "talk" going on. You're not supposed to notice that, or his three houses, or his $1.2 million spent on luxury private jets in one quarter. "If we don't act incredibly boldly in the next six, seven years, there will be irreparable damage done. Not just to Nevada, not just to Vermont or Massachusetts, but to the entire world." "The scope of the challenge ahead of us shares similarities with the crisis faced by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the 1940s... Bernie will lead our country to enact the Green New Deal and bring the world together to defeat the existential threat of climate change." He should make changes in his own life before preaching to others. As long as he is willing to pay the increased tax rates there is not the hypocrisy you are trying to find. Because despite the scare tactics of the far right he is not a communist, he is a social democrat which allow for some difference between the classes, just not the exponential situation the US currently faces. If you want hypocrisy you have to look at "self made man" in the presidents seat who calls others liars and crooks. Claims to have made his wealth. Insults actual war vets which he draft dodged. Got his wealth not at all selfmade but by tax evasion on inheritance. Son of a grifter and grandson of a grifter. And that is just his surface level hypocrisy before you get into the whole him being a "good christian" while being a admitted adulterer who pays women he has sex with to keep quiet. I mean that is most of the deadly sins and a bunch of commandments all in just a few acts. With Trump you dont have to stretch or make up any hypocrisy it is actually hard to find anything genuine about the man. Agreed about Trump. Don't see how Bernie can call for radical restructuring of the economy because climate change is going to end the world and then fly around in lux jets and buy a 4 bedroom house for his third property. It's like Obama's new 12 million mansion yet he's buddies with Greta. He made climate change a "top priority" but not in his own life. They're all crooks. All of it (Trump included) reminds me of this part in a Chomsky interview which I think can apply to politicians. Long filtration process before anyone steps on stage. + Show Spoiler +Chomsky: “Well, I know some of the best, and best known investigative reporters in the United States, I won’t mention names, {inaudible}, whose attitude towards the media is much more cynical than mine. In fact, they regard the media as a sham. And they know, and they consciously talk about how they try to play it like a violin. If they see a little opening, they’ll try to squeeze something in that ordinarily wouldn’t make it through. And it’s perfectly true that the majority - I’m sure you’re speaking for the majority of journalists who are trained, have it driven into their heads, that this is a crusading profession, adversarial, we stand up against power. A very self-serving view. On the other hand, in my opinion, I hate to make a value judgement but, the better journalists and in fact the ones who are often regarded as the best journalists have quite a different picture. And I think a very realistic one.”
Marr[BBC journalist]: “How can you know that I’m self-censoring? How can you know that journalists are..”
Chomsky: “I’m not saying you're self-censoring. I’m sure you believe everything you’re saying. But what I’m saying is that if you believed something different, you wouldn’t be sitting where you’re sitting.” Fair enough on the property stand point the Jet part becomes different because to gain the power to make changes he needs travel by air. Now could he fly commercial? That really depends on how tight his schedule is and how many less appearances he "needs" to make to win the power to make change. To me the point at which it would become hypocritical would be if they made a rules that private jets could not be used except by politician's, or that a carbon tax was not applicable to politicians. If they made a carbon tax to make it just way more expensive so it was less frequent and he was willing to pay the tax then I would not have a problem with it. I do think it would be a interesting strategy to make a big deal about flying commercial and explaining why that would cause him to make less appearances and hope that the "walking the talk" was a bigger boost than the additional appearances, I'm just not sure that it would. And the stakes are very high in the sense that if you win you have a lot of power to make major changes, and if you don't you have none. It always seems to go that way. Austerity and bug burgers for thee, but not for me. Bernie also spent $342,000 on private jets in the two years following the last election. Other cases are the Google climate change summit and climate change focused Davos. Hundreds of private jets.
|
On February 21 2020 06:11 Xxio wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2020 03:03 JimmiC wrote:On February 21 2020 01:33 Xxio wrote:On February 20 2020 14:49 JimmiC wrote:On February 20 2020 14:26 Xxio wrote:On February 20 2020 12:36 Wegandi wrote:
It's funny hearing Bernie talk about the rich buying votes when all his plans are essentially, here's some free shit, $$$, vote for me. There's no pretense this debate is anything else. Every candidate is in a game of one upmanship to who can use the Government to give away the most shit. It's hilarious how transparent it is. There's almost no substantive and factual "talk" going on. You're not supposed to notice that, or his three houses, or his $1.2 million spent on luxury private jets in one quarter. "If we don't act incredibly boldly in the next six, seven years, there will be irreparable damage done. Not just to Nevada, not just to Vermont or Massachusetts, but to the entire world." "The scope of the challenge ahead of us shares similarities with the crisis faced by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the 1940s... Bernie will lead our country to enact the Green New Deal and bring the world together to defeat the existential threat of climate change." He should make changes in his own life before preaching to others. As long as he is willing to pay the increased tax rates there is not the hypocrisy you are trying to find. Because despite the scare tactics of the far right he is not a communist, he is a social democrat which allow for some difference between the classes, just not the exponential situation the US currently faces. If you want hypocrisy you have to look at "self made man" in the presidents seat who calls others liars and crooks. Claims to have made his wealth. Insults actual war vets which he draft dodged. Got his wealth not at all selfmade but by tax evasion on inheritance. Son of a grifter and grandson of a grifter. And that is just his surface level hypocrisy before you get into the whole him being a "good christian" while being a admitted adulterer who pays women he has sex with to keep quiet. I mean that is most of the deadly sins and a bunch of commandments all in just a few acts. With Trump you dont have to stretch or make up any hypocrisy it is actually hard to find anything genuine about the man. Agreed about Trump. Don't see how Bernie can call for radical restructuring of the economy because climate change is going to end the world and then fly around in lux jets and buy a 4 bedroom house for his third property. It's like Obama's new 12 million mansion yet he's buddies with Greta. He made climate change a "top priority" but not in his own life. They're all crooks. All of it (Trump included) reminds me of this part in a Chomsky interview which I think can apply to politicians. Long filtration process before anyone steps on stage. + Show Spoiler +Chomsky: “Well, I know some of the best, and best known investigative reporters in the United States, I won’t mention names, {inaudible}, whose attitude towards the media is much more cynical than mine. In fact, they regard the media as a sham. And they know, and they consciously talk about how they try to play it like a violin. If they see a little opening, they’ll try to squeeze something in that ordinarily wouldn’t make it through. And it’s perfectly true that the majority - I’m sure you’re speaking for the majority of journalists who are trained, have it driven into their heads, that this is a crusading profession, adversarial, we stand up against power. A very self-serving view. On the other hand, in my opinion, I hate to make a value judgement but, the better journalists and in fact the ones who are often regarded as the best journalists have quite a different picture. And I think a very realistic one.”
Marr[BBC journalist]: “How can you know that I’m self-censoring? How can you know that journalists are..”
Chomsky: “I’m not saying you're self-censoring. I’m sure you believe everything you’re saying. But what I’m saying is that if you believed something different, you wouldn’t be sitting where you’re sitting.” Fair enough on the property stand point the Jet part becomes different because to gain the power to make changes he needs travel by air. Now could he fly commercial? That really depends on how tight his schedule is and how many less appearances he "needs" to make to win the power to make change. To me the point at which it would become hypocritical would be if they made a rules that private jets could not be used except by politician's, or that a carbon tax was not applicable to politicians. If they made a carbon tax to make it just way more expensive so it was less frequent and he was willing to pay the tax then I would not have a problem with it. I do think it would be a interesting strategy to make a big deal about flying commercial and explaining why that would cause him to make less appearances and hope that the "walking the talk" was a bigger boost than the additional appearances, I'm just not sure that it would. And the stakes are very high in the sense that if you win you have a lot of power to make major changes, and if you don't you have none. It always seems to go that way. Austerity and bug burgers for thee, but not for me. Bernie also spent $342,000 on private jets in the two years following the last election. Other cases are the Google climate change summit and climate change focused Davos. Hundreds of private jets.
The worst part of those jet flights is they were for the DNC. But it should be noted that they were political trips and carbon offsets (which are kinda bullshit) were purchased.
As to the silly talking point about his houses. He's got a modest home in VT, an overpriced place in DC, and a cabin on a lake for the summer. Nothing about that is hypocritical.
EDIT: Someone cut together a sample of the anti-Bernie folks leading up to when his frontrunner status became undeniable.
|
The big problem with a Biden bounce back is that a convention where no one has more than 30% of the delegates (which is entirely possible if 5 people stay in the race) is terrible. One of the many problems with the insane bankrolling of campaigns is that that is more plausible than ever, and even I as a Bernie supporter am uncomfortable with saying "well, whoever has the plurality of votes/delegates should be nominee" in a setting where it's something like 30/20/20/15/15. Hopefully he can start cracking 40 and people stay under 15 as time goes on so that doesn't happen. Bernie needs to break 50% outside his home state at some point as well for the sake of making compelling arguments.
|
On February 21 2020 07:37 TheTenthDoc wrote:
The big problem with a Biden bounce back is that a convention where no one has more than 30% of the delegates (which is entirely possible if 5 people stay in the race) is terrible. One of the many problems with the insane bankrolling of campaigns is that that is more plausible than ever, and even I as a Bernie supporter am uncomfortable with saying "well, whoever has the plurality of votes/delegates should be nominee" in a setting where it's something like 30/20/20/15/15. Hopefully he can start cracking 40 and people stay under 15 as time goes on so that doesn't happen. Bernie needs to break 50% outside his home state at some point as well for the sake of making compelling arguments.
The main advantage to having multiple candidates isn't just that they split the moderate vote and lose to Bernie but that they fail to meet the 15% thresholds for delegates.
The brokered convention plan is contingent on being able to deprive Sanders delegates but that requires clearing 15%. Basically that means Bernie can stay around 30% and still get a massive lead in delegates (though harder than winner take all like the Republican primary).
Another aspect that makes this multi-candidate brokered convention plan poorly conceived, is that once it is clear candidates are mathematically eliminated from winning the nomination, it becomes much harder to maintain their campaign.
Which is why Bloomberg is strong. He can essentially buy his viability in the remaining states (even if he can't win any or the nomination outright).
|
In various other news today :
- Rohrabacher admitted that he dangled a pardon to Assange for denying Russia's involvement in the DNC hack (followed up with Kelly, but never told Trump about it)
- Mulvaney told English officials that the US were desperate for more immigrants to fuel the growth of the economy. Needless to say you will never hear Trump say he's desperate for something he hates.
- House members were told in a meeting last week that resulted in the ousting of the director of national intelligence (as he "allowed" one of his staff to brief the House on a sensitive topic) that Russia was interfering with the 2020 election to help Trump be re-elected. One can understand the Russian even if they have no dirt on Trump. They just have to look at the shit-fest of these past few years and the major loss of foreign influence that the US suffered over the world to appreciate the results of this strategy.
I'd really like to be here in 20 or so years, when we hopefully finally reach conclusive answers on what happened during this time period where everything is going down the drain.
edit : well he did say :
“Legal immigrants enrich our nation and strengthen our society in countless ways,” the president said in his 2019 State of the Union address. “I want people to come into our country in the largest numbers ever, but they have to come in legally.”
in a speech written by someone else of course, not during a rally :-p Wouldn't fit the mood !
|
Canada11278 Posts
On February 21 2020 02:47 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2020 02:31 Mohdoo wrote:On February 21 2020 01:33 Xxio wrote:On February 20 2020 14:49 JimmiC wrote:On February 20 2020 14:26 Xxio wrote:On February 20 2020 12:36 Wegandi wrote:
It's funny hearing Bernie talk about the rich buying votes when all his plans are essentially, here's some free shit, $$$, vote for me. There's no pretense this debate is anything else. Every candidate is in a game of one upmanship to who can use the Government to give away the most shit. It's hilarious how transparent it is. There's almost no substantive and factual "talk" going on. You're not supposed to notice that, or his three houses, or his $1.2 million spent on luxury private jets in one quarter. "If we don't act incredibly boldly in the next six, seven years, there will be irreparable damage done. Not just to Nevada, not just to Vermont or Massachusetts, but to the entire world." "The scope of the challenge ahead of us shares similarities with the crisis faced by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the 1940s... Bernie will lead our country to enact the Green New Deal and bring the world together to defeat the existential threat of climate change." He should make changes in his own life before preaching to others. As long as he is willing to pay the increased tax rates there is not the hypocrisy you are trying to find. Because despite the scare tactics of the far right he is not a communist, he is a social democrat which allow for some difference between the classes, just not the exponential situation the US currently faces. If you want hypocrisy you have to look at "self made man" in the presidents seat who calls others liars and crooks. Claims to have made his wealth. Insults actual war vets which he draft dodged. Got his wealth not at all selfmade but by tax evasion on inheritance. Son of a grifter and grandson of a grifter. And that is just his surface level hypocrisy before you get into the whole him being a "good christian" while being a admitted adulterer who pays women he has sex with to keep quiet. I mean that is most of the deadly sins and a bunch of commandments all in just a few acts. With Trump you dont have to stretch or make up any hypocrisy it is actually hard to find anything genuine about the man. Agreed about Trump. Don't see how Bernie can call for radical restructuring of the economy because climate change is going to end the world and then fly around in lux jets and buy a 4 bedroom house for his third property. It's like Obama's new 12 million mansion yet he's buddies with Greta. He made climate change a "top priority" but not in his own life. They're all crooks. All of it (Trump included) reminds me of this part in a Chomsky interview which I think can apply to politicians. Long filtration process before anyone steps on stage. + Show Spoiler +Chomsky: “Well, I know some of the best, and best known investigative reporters in the United States, I won’t mention names, {inaudible}, whose attitude towards the media is much more cynical than mine. In fact, they regard the media as a sham. And they know, and they consciously talk about how they try to play it like a violin. If they see a little opening, they’ll try to squeeze something in that ordinarily wouldn’t make it through. And it’s perfectly true that the majority - I’m sure you’re speaking for the majority of journalists who are trained, have it driven into their heads, that this is a crusading profession, adversarial, we stand up against power. A very self-serving view. On the other hand, in my opinion, I hate to make a value judgement but, the better journalists and in fact the ones who are often regarded as the best journalists have quite a different picture. And I think a very realistic one.”
Marr[BBC journalist]: “How can you know that I’m self-censoring? How can you know that journalists are..”
Chomsky: “I’m not saying you're self-censoring. I’m sure you believe everything you’re saying. But what I’m saying is that if you believed something different, you wouldn’t be sitting where you’re sitting.” FYI the type of argument you are making regarding "how can you preach ____ when there are imperfections with how you execute what you are saying" isn't considered valid in a technical sense. Pointing out the existence of imperfections in someone's execution in what they preach does not disqualify the critique. Many major political and civil rights leaders throughout history were not perfect. It doesn't make what they say less true. We've covered your argument in this thread many times. Every now and then someone wanders into this thread and basically says exactly what you said word for word. It is a common cheap pundit point that doesn't stand up to actual argumentative theory. If you want more information, see this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque saying that important people flying around on jets is hypocrisy is a dumb logical argument. a president cant govern from his house via web conferencing and neither can a candidate campaign. planes are useful. you need to weigh the cost of any particular plane trip vs the benefit of the trip. global warming is a question about how to distribute the total social use of the commons, not an argument that nobody can use the commons for any reason
I think the ones that come to mind are the ones where rich Hollywood elite all fly/ boat over on their yachts to all agree that something must be done about climate change (100 private jets/ super yachts to Sicily). But what is an actor or supermodel going to do exactly? So then you hear of that sort of thing and now I am the one that needs to radically change my life when I haven't flown on a plane since 2007? That's the part that rather stinks for a lot of the working class, and I don't think it's a dumb logical argument. How much of a crisis is it? Doesn't seem like much of one if private jets continue to fly unabated around the world for fairly useless summits.
|
On February 21 2020 08:38 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2020 02:47 IgnE wrote:On February 21 2020 02:31 Mohdoo wrote:On February 21 2020 01:33 Xxio wrote:On February 20 2020 14:49 JimmiC wrote:On February 20 2020 14:26 Xxio wrote:On February 20 2020 12:36 Wegandi wrote:
It's funny hearing Bernie talk about the rich buying votes when all his plans are essentially, here's some free shit, $$$, vote for me. There's no pretense this debate is anything else. Every candidate is in a game of one upmanship to who can use the Government to give away the most shit. It's hilarious how transparent it is. There's almost no substantive and factual "talk" going on. You're not supposed to notice that, or his three houses, or his $1.2 million spent on luxury private jets in one quarter. "If we don't act incredibly boldly in the next six, seven years, there will be irreparable damage done. Not just to Nevada, not just to Vermont or Massachusetts, but to the entire world." "The scope of the challenge ahead of us shares similarities with the crisis faced by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the 1940s... Bernie will lead our country to enact the Green New Deal and bring the world together to defeat the existential threat of climate change." He should make changes in his own life before preaching to others. As long as he is willing to pay the increased tax rates there is not the hypocrisy you are trying to find. Because despite the scare tactics of the far right he is not a communist, he is a social democrat which allow for some difference between the classes, just not the exponential situation the US currently faces. If you want hypocrisy you have to look at "self made man" in the presidents seat who calls others liars and crooks. Claims to have made his wealth. Insults actual war vets which he draft dodged. Got his wealth not at all selfmade but by tax evasion on inheritance. Son of a grifter and grandson of a grifter. And that is just his surface level hypocrisy before you get into the whole him being a "good christian" while being a admitted adulterer who pays women he has sex with to keep quiet. I mean that is most of the deadly sins and a bunch of commandments all in just a few acts. With Trump you dont have to stretch or make up any hypocrisy it is actually hard to find anything genuine about the man. Agreed about Trump. Don't see how Bernie can call for radical restructuring of the economy because climate change is going to end the world and then fly around in lux jets and buy a 4 bedroom house for his third property. It's like Obama's new 12 million mansion yet he's buddies with Greta. He made climate change a "top priority" but not in his own life. They're all crooks. All of it (Trump included) reminds me of this part in a Chomsky interview which I think can apply to politicians. Long filtration process before anyone steps on stage. + Show Spoiler +Chomsky: “Well, I know some of the best, and best known investigative reporters in the United States, I won’t mention names, {inaudible}, whose attitude towards the media is much more cynical than mine. In fact, they regard the media as a sham. And they know, and they consciously talk about how they try to play it like a violin. If they see a little opening, they’ll try to squeeze something in that ordinarily wouldn’t make it through. And it’s perfectly true that the majority - I’m sure you’re speaking for the majority of journalists who are trained, have it driven into their heads, that this is a crusading profession, adversarial, we stand up against power. A very self-serving view. On the other hand, in my opinion, I hate to make a value judgement but, the better journalists and in fact the ones who are often regarded as the best journalists have quite a different picture. And I think a very realistic one.”
Marr[BBC journalist]: “How can you know that I’m self-censoring? How can you know that journalists are..”
Chomsky: “I’m not saying you're self-censoring. I’m sure you believe everything you’re saying. But what I’m saying is that if you believed something different, you wouldn’t be sitting where you’re sitting.” FYI the type of argument you are making regarding "how can you preach ____ when there are imperfections with how you execute what you are saying" isn't considered valid in a technical sense. Pointing out the existence of imperfections in someone's execution in what they preach does not disqualify the critique. Many major political and civil rights leaders throughout history were not perfect. It doesn't make what they say less true. We've covered your argument in this thread many times. Every now and then someone wanders into this thread and basically says exactly what you said word for word. It is a common cheap pundit point that doesn't stand up to actual argumentative theory. If you want more information, see this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque saying that important people flying around on jets is hypocrisy is a dumb logical argument. a president cant govern from his house via web conferencing and neither can a candidate campaign. planes are useful. you need to weigh the cost of any particular plane trip vs the benefit of the trip. global warming is a question about how to distribute the total social use of the commons, not an argument that nobody can use the commons for any reason I think the ones that come to mind are the ones where rich Hollywood elite all fly/ boat over on their yachts to all agree that something must be done about climate change (100 private jets/ super yachts to Sicily). But what is an actor or supermodel going to do exactly? So then you hear of that sort of thing and now I am the one that needs to radically change my life when I haven't flown on a plane since 2007? That's the part that rather stinks for a lot of the working class, and I don't think it's a dumb logical argument. How much of a crisis is it? Doesn't seem like much of one if private jets continue to fly unabated around the world for fairly useless summits.
We already went through this. The fact that you don't think it's dumb isn't really important. Your views don't change the technical aspects of argument.
You are saying it must not be a big problem, since a select group of people saying it is a problem use a private jet, and a private jet makes things worse.
Again,
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque
|
Canada11278 Posts
No, it's that the big things aren't getting touched, while harping on the little things. Green meals while pumping out untold amount of energy to produce the Oscars- skin deep. It's a surface-level approach, which is both ineffective from a technical standpoint and unpersuasive for changing actions.
|
On February 21 2020 08:38 Falling wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2020 02:47 IgnE wrote:On February 21 2020 02:31 Mohdoo wrote:On February 21 2020 01:33 Xxio wrote:On February 20 2020 14:49 JimmiC wrote:On February 20 2020 14:26 Xxio wrote:On February 20 2020 12:36 Wegandi wrote:
It's funny hearing Bernie talk about the rich buying votes when all his plans are essentially, here's some free shit, $$$, vote for me. There's no pretense this debate is anything else. Every candidate is in a game of one upmanship to who can use the Government to give away the most shit. It's hilarious how transparent it is. There's almost no substantive and factual "talk" going on. You're not supposed to notice that, or his three houses, or his $1.2 million spent on luxury private jets in one quarter. "If we don't act incredibly boldly in the next six, seven years, there will be irreparable damage done. Not just to Nevada, not just to Vermont or Massachusetts, but to the entire world." "The scope of the challenge ahead of us shares similarities with the crisis faced by President Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the 1940s... Bernie will lead our country to enact the Green New Deal and bring the world together to defeat the existential threat of climate change." He should make changes in his own life before preaching to others. As long as he is willing to pay the increased tax rates there is not the hypocrisy you are trying to find. Because despite the scare tactics of the far right he is not a communist, he is a social democrat which allow for some difference between the classes, just not the exponential situation the US currently faces. If you want hypocrisy you have to look at "self made man" in the presidents seat who calls others liars and crooks. Claims to have made his wealth. Insults actual war vets which he draft dodged. Got his wealth not at all selfmade but by tax evasion on inheritance. Son of a grifter and grandson of a grifter. And that is just his surface level hypocrisy before you get into the whole him being a "good christian" while being a admitted adulterer who pays women he has sex with to keep quiet. I mean that is most of the deadly sins and a bunch of commandments all in just a few acts. With Trump you dont have to stretch or make up any hypocrisy it is actually hard to find anything genuine about the man. Agreed about Trump. Don't see how Bernie can call for radical restructuring of the economy because climate change is going to end the world and then fly around in lux jets and buy a 4 bedroom house for his third property. It's like Obama's new 12 million mansion yet he's buddies with Greta. He made climate change a "top priority" but not in his own life. They're all crooks. All of it (Trump included) reminds me of this part in a Chomsky interview which I think can apply to politicians. Long filtration process before anyone steps on stage. + Show Spoiler +Chomsky: “Well, I know some of the best, and best known investigative reporters in the United States, I won’t mention names, {inaudible}, whose attitude towards the media is much more cynical than mine. In fact, they regard the media as a sham. And they know, and they consciously talk about how they try to play it like a violin. If they see a little opening, they’ll try to squeeze something in that ordinarily wouldn’t make it through. And it’s perfectly true that the majority - I’m sure you’re speaking for the majority of journalists who are trained, have it driven into their heads, that this is a crusading profession, adversarial, we stand up against power. A very self-serving view. On the other hand, in my opinion, I hate to make a value judgement but, the better journalists and in fact the ones who are often regarded as the best journalists have quite a different picture. And I think a very realistic one.”
Marr[BBC journalist]: “How can you know that I’m self-censoring? How can you know that journalists are..”
Chomsky: “I’m not saying you're self-censoring. I’m sure you believe everything you’re saying. But what I’m saying is that if you believed something different, you wouldn’t be sitting where you’re sitting.” FYI the type of argument you are making regarding "how can you preach ____ when there are imperfections with how you execute what you are saying" isn't considered valid in a technical sense. Pointing out the existence of imperfections in someone's execution in what they preach does not disqualify the critique. Many major political and civil rights leaders throughout history were not perfect. It doesn't make what they say less true. We've covered your argument in this thread many times. Every now and then someone wanders into this thread and basically says exactly what you said word for word. It is a common cheap pundit point that doesn't stand up to actual argumentative theory. If you want more information, see this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tu_quoque saying that important people flying around on jets is hypocrisy is a dumb logical argument. a president cant govern from his house via web conferencing and neither can a candidate campaign. planes are useful. you need to weigh the cost of any particular plane trip vs the benefit of the trip. global warming is a question about how to distribute the total social use of the commons, not an argument that nobody can use the commons for any reason I think the ones that come to mind are the ones where rich Hollywood elite all fly/ boat over on their yachts to all agree that something must be done about climate change (100 private jets/ super yachts to Sicily). But what is an actor or supermodel going to do exactly? So then you hear of that sort of thing and now I am the one that needs to radically change my life when I haven't flown on a plane since 2007? That's the part that rather stinks for a lot of the working class, and I don't think it's a dumb logical argument. How much of a crisis is it? Doesn't seem like much of one if private jets continue to fly unabated around the world for fairly useless summits.
Not to speak for IgnE/others, but I think the bolded portion is what people are calling a dumb logical argument. The question “how much of a crisis is climate change?” is an interesting one, and there’s a lot of evidence you might weigh in determining an answer to that question; how much fuel Leonardo DiCaprio’s private jet uses and whether that is a good use of carbon is bad evidence to consider. If it’s a bad use of carbon, the obvious conclusion is not “climate change must not be very serious” but “Leonardo DiCaprio is making the problem worse and/or is an idiot.”
To bring it back to the topic at hand, IgnE would seem to be saying that if you want to criticize someone like Bernie Sanders for, say, flying on a private jet, you should actually do the due diligence to show that the carbon footprint of that action was not a justifiable use of carbon; otherwise you’re caricaturing the environmentalist position as “nobody should fly anywhere ever” and then accusing him of hypocrisy for violating an absurdist position he never espoused.
|
On February 21 2020 05:13 Nebuchad wrote:
The assumption that Bloomberg will lose all support because of this and therefore Biden surges back is not realistic. More likely Bloomberg's rise will be stopped, he'll lose a couple points, but he'll still maintain presence and further divide the moderate republican vote. The odds of him continuing to gain ground are better than the odds of him losing all of his support back to Biden.
Well, admittedly we are in the speculative territory, but my assertion that Bloomberg will drop and Biden will gain from this debate has happened to other pairs before and critically there is enough time before the Bloomberg surge states that this botch can really sink in. Also not really sure why you think the odds of him improving are better, but yeah I'd bet the opposite.
On February 21 2020 05:07 Logo wrote:I think Bloomberg and Buttigeig are the closest ideology wise, and that plays out in voter 2nd choice preferences. As for Bloomberg, his supporters are at 29% Biden, 20% Bernie, 20% Buttigeig for 2nd choice support, so there's only some minimal loss to Bernie's standing vs Biden if Bloomberg loses a bunch of his support, but it means that Biden and Buttigeig both still stay in the race. Source: https://morningconsult.com/2020-democratic-primary/Honestly Bernie is pretty high up as a 2nd choice candidate, it's not really easy to tell what impact any particular candidate's fluctuations would have on his standing and if you believe the head to head match-up polling everyone but Sanders & X dropping out would be good for Sanders.
I don't think that second choice data will matter much once Buttigieg leaves, and also its hard to tell how it could be affected in ST states.
Until, and only until Joe Biden loses in the state of South Carolina will I believe he's finished. South Carolina is the saturday before super tuesday and it could give him a sizeable bounce.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
