|
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 |
LOL Elizabeth Warren is now saying she needs Super PACs because she's a woman. Amazing.
https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/mollyhensleyclancy/elizabeth-warren-super-pac-2020-campaign
"We reached the point a few weeks ago where all of the men who were on the debate stage all had either super PACs or they were multibillionaires who could rummage around in their sock drawers and find enough money to be able to fund a campaign, and the only people who didn’t have them were the two women," she said.
"At that point, there were some women around the country who said, 'That's just not right.'"
Gotta be one of the most ridiculous stretches of logic ever. She is basically implying the only way women can overcome sexism is with dark money. I don't think she is making a good argument. I think she is just kissing DNC feet in hopes she is selected at a contested convention.
|
Northern Ireland23824 Posts
On February 21 2020 09:46 Mohdoo wrote:LOL Elizabeth Warren is now saying she needs Super PACs because she's a woman. Amazing. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/mollyhensleyclancy/elizabeth-warren-super-pac-2020-campaignShow nested quote +
"We reached the point a few weeks ago where all of the men who were on the debate stage all had either super PACs or they were multibillionaires who could rummage around in their sock drawers and find enough money to be able to fund a campaign, and the only people who didn’t have them were the two women," she said.
"At that point, there were some women around the country who said, 'That's just not right.'"
Gotta be one of the most ridiculous stretches of logic ever. She is basically implying the only way women can overcome sexism is with dark money. I don't think she is making a good argument. I think she is just kissing DNC feet in hopes she is selected at a contested convention.
Is there a super PAC behind Bernie that I’m missing or? I mean I may be mistaken entirely on that.
That aside what is she thinking pragmatically? This kind of angle did not work for Hillary Clinton, it just does not play well in general.
It pisses off the genuine sexist types, the types who aren’t especially sexist but complain about ‘political correctness’ all the time and it pisses off plenty of people of a feminist leaning who see such pronouncements as really transparently self-interested.
I’m not sure who this really appeals to in any strategically significant sense.
|
Northern Ireland23824 Posts
It also bloody goes against one of her actual strong points, which is a pretty decent record of regulation of certain industries excesses, plus a clearly articulated rhetorical record on where problems lie.
She is basically saying oh forget that stuff I said, the issue is that money isn’t circulating to as many female political candidates as men.
In what world is that a sensible campaign move? I’m honesty baffled that either she individually, or prompted by campaign advice would utter such nonsense.
The denizens of this glorious thread seem more on the pulse and strategically savvy than all these campaigns backed by millions of dollars. Or billions in Bloomberg’s case.
Which I guess does give me a degree of hope that money doesn’t always buy you quality.
|
On February 21 2020 10:02 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2020 09:46 Mohdoo wrote:LOL Elizabeth Warren is now saying she needs Super PACs because she's a woman. Amazing. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/mollyhensleyclancy/elizabeth-warren-super-pac-2020-campaign
"We reached the point a few weeks ago where all of the men who were on the debate stage all had either super PACs or they were multibillionaires who could rummage around in their sock drawers and find enough money to be able to fund a campaign, and the only people who didn’t have them were the two women," she said.
"At that point, there were some women around the country who said, 'That's just not right.'"
Gotta be one of the most ridiculous stretches of logic ever. She is basically implying the only way women can overcome sexism is with dark money. I don't think she is making a good argument. I think she is just kissing DNC feet in hopes she is selected at a contested convention. Is there a super PAC behind Bernie that I’m missing or? I mean I may be mistaken entirely on that. That aside what is she thinking pragmatically? This kind of angle did not work for Hillary Clinton, it just does not play well in general. It pisses off the genuine sexist types, the types who aren’t especially sexist but complain about ‘political correctness’ all the time and it pisses off plenty of people of a feminist leaning who see such pronouncements as really transparently self-interested. I’m not sure who this really appeals to in any strategically significant sense.
You're right, there is no Bernie superpac. She is conveniently ignoring the current front-runner LOL
I see it as a move of desperation. She still fully intends to be president. The funny thing is that the not-Bernies are trying to scoop up as many delegates by any means necessary so that they are well positioned for a contested convention. And yet, by all doing so, they accomplish nothing. Somehow, at least 1 of them need to be convinced to drop out before the convention.
So then what would be the incentive to drop out? VP? But wouldn't the VP slot go to the second most delegates at a contested convention? So whoever drops early runs the risk of being ignored later in the year. Even if the DNC promises Warren VP slot, what if Warren's support tanks by the time of the convention? They couldn't still honor the agreement. So no matter how you slice it, every candidate needs to basically just focus on winning.
If it really turns out that Bernie gets the nomination thanks to political greed, against a billionaire, this will officially be an anime.
|
On February 21 2020 09:46 Mohdoo wrote:LOL Elizabeth Warren is now saying she needs Super PACs because she's a woman. Amazing. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/mollyhensleyclancy/elizabeth-warren-super-pac-2020-campaignShow nested quote +
"We reached the point a few weeks ago where all of the men who were on the debate stage all had either super PACs or they were multibillionaires who could rummage around in their sock drawers and find enough money to be able to fund a campaign, and the only people who didn’t have them were the two women," she said.
"At that point, there were some women around the country who said, 'That's just not right.'"
Gotta be one of the most ridiculous stretches of logic ever. She is basically implying the only way women can overcome sexism is with dark money. I don't think she is making a good argument. I think she is just kissing DNC feet in hopes she is selected at a contested convention.
I'm very interested in where Sanders is hiding his money and how if that were actually true. lol
|
On February 21 2020 10:11 Wombat_NI wrote:
It also bloody goes against one of her actual strong points, which is a pretty decent record of regulation of certain industries excesses, plus a clearly articulated rhetorical record on where problems lie.
She is basically saying oh forget that stuff I said, the issue is that money isn’t circulating to as many female political candidates as men.
In what world is that a sensible campaign move? I’m honesty baffled that either she individually, or prompted by campaign advice would utter such nonsense.
The denizens of this glorious thread seem more on the pulse and strategically savvy than all these campaigns backed by millions of dollars. Or billions in Bloomberg’s case.
Which I guess does give me a degree of hope that money doesn’t always buy you quality.
It means she ran out of money. She can 1) drop 2) stay in without any real campaigning 3) she can go get money.
It looks like she is choosing 3. It's a desperate move, which is a shame because I thought she did quite well in last night's debate. When she had someone who she actually wanted to attack (Bloomberg), she came alive. Gives me some hope that she could debate well against Trump if she could actually get there.
Unfortunately, she's got almost not shot and the optics of taking super PAC money is going to really hurt her (I think). Then again, Bloomberg has bought himself into relevancy. We'll see what his horrendous debate does for the next few primaries, but it looks like there's enough people out there who will believe whatever someone on TV says. Bloomberg is the only one flooding the TV with Ads in my state (IL) and I'm guessing many others that aren't up next.
|
Canada8988 Posts
On February 21 2020 10:16 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2020 10:02 Wombat_NI wrote:On February 21 2020 09:46 Mohdoo wrote:LOL Elizabeth Warren is now saying she needs Super PACs because she's a woman. Amazing. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/mollyhensleyclancy/elizabeth-warren-super-pac-2020-campaign
"We reached the point a few weeks ago where all of the men who were on the debate stage all had either super PACs or they were multibillionaires who could rummage around in their sock drawers and find enough money to be able to fund a campaign, and the only people who didn’t have them were the two women," she said.
"At that point, there were some women around the country who said, 'That's just not right.'"
Gotta be one of the most ridiculous stretches of logic ever. She is basically implying the only way women can overcome sexism is with dark money. I don't think she is making a good argument. I think she is just kissing DNC feet in hopes she is selected at a contested convention. Is there a super PAC behind Bernie that I’m missing or? I mean I may be mistaken entirely on that. That aside what is she thinking pragmatically? This kind of angle did not work for Hillary Clinton, it just does not play well in general. It pisses off the genuine sexist types, the types who aren’t especially sexist but complain about ‘political correctness’ all the time and it pisses off plenty of people of a feminist leaning who see such pronouncements as really transparently self-interested. I’m not sure who this really appeals to in any strategically significant sense. You're right, there is no Bernie superpac. She is conveniently ignoring the current front-runner LOL I see it as a move of desperation. She still fully intends to be president. The funny thing is that the not-Bernies are trying to scoop up as many delegates by any means necessary so that they are well positioned for a contested convention. And yet, by all doing so, they accomplish nothing. Somehow, at least 1 of them need to be convinced to drop out before the convention. If it really turns out that Bernie gets the nomination thanks to political greed, against a billionaire, this will officially be an anime.
If Sander really is around 35% and Warren between 10 and 15, i'd say Sanders is pretty well off in any scenario. It's not clear if one of the other four candidates pull out that every support goes to another moderate, for exemple Sanders is currently slightly behind Biden in second place among africo-american voters while both Bud and Klob are in the low single digget, it's a pretty big leap to assume they would get a big majority of Bidens black supporter if he pulls out.
It's of course more risky for him if there's just a single candidate in front of him, but at around 35% with five other major candidate, one pretty close to him politicaly, he's got to be fairly close of 50 +1 in all 1v1 scenario. Better to stay in hoping to have the balance of power in a contested convention than to go out in a risky bet that someone else get a clear majority.
|
On February 21 2020 11:05 Nakajin wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2020 10:16 Mohdoo wrote:On February 21 2020 10:02 Wombat_NI wrote:On February 21 2020 09:46 Mohdoo wrote:LOL Elizabeth Warren is now saying she needs Super PACs because she's a woman. Amazing. https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/mollyhensleyclancy/elizabeth-warren-super-pac-2020-campaign
"We reached the point a few weeks ago where all of the men who were on the debate stage all had either super PACs or they were multibillionaires who could rummage around in their sock drawers and find enough money to be able to fund a campaign, and the only people who didn’t have them were the two women," she said.
"At that point, there were some women around the country who said, 'That's just not right.'"
Gotta be one of the most ridiculous stretches of logic ever. She is basically implying the only way women can overcome sexism is with dark money. I don't think she is making a good argument. I think she is just kissing DNC feet in hopes she is selected at a contested convention. Is there a super PAC behind Bernie that I’m missing or? I mean I may be mistaken entirely on that. That aside what is she thinking pragmatically? This kind of angle did not work for Hillary Clinton, it just does not play well in general. It pisses off the genuine sexist types, the types who aren’t especially sexist but complain about ‘political correctness’ all the time and it pisses off plenty of people of a feminist leaning who see such pronouncements as really transparently self-interested. I’m not sure who this really appeals to in any strategically significant sense. You're right, there is no Bernie superpac. She is conveniently ignoring the current front-runner LOL I see it as a move of desperation. She still fully intends to be president. The funny thing is that the not-Bernies are trying to scoop up as many delegates by any means necessary so that they are well positioned for a contested convention. And yet, by all doing so, they accomplish nothing. Somehow, at least 1 of them need to be convinced to drop out before the convention. If it really turns out that Bernie gets the nomination thanks to political greed, against a billionaire, this will officially be an anime. If Sander really is around 35% and Warren between 10 and 15, i'd say Sanders is pretty well off in any scenario. It's not clear if one of the other four candidates pull out that every support goes to another moderate, for exemple Sanders is currently slightly behind Biden in second place among africo-american voters while both Bud and Klob are in the low single digget, it's a pretty big leap to assume they would get a big majority of Bidens black supporter if he pulls out. It's of course more risky for him if there's just a single candidate in front of him, but at around 35% with five other major candidate, one pretty close to him, he's got to be fairly close of 50 +1 in all 1v1 scenario. Better to stay in hoping to have the balance of power in a contested convention than to go out in a risky bet that someone else get a clear majority.
POC will never go to Buttigieg. Homophobia is extremely understated in Hispanic and Black communities. I'm ashamed of it. I'm glad it means Buttigieg will never be the nominee, but I'm sad homophobia is a reason why
|
On February 21 2020 08:45 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2020 08:38 Falling wrote: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
Oh please lol.
In case you have forgotten, Bernie has been saying catastrophic climate change is an existential threat that requires unprecedented amount of effort to prevent.
Unless you are suggesting that Bernie is sucidal or does not care about the well being of future generations of Americans and people around the world, it is NOT tu quoque.
The fact of the matter is that Bernie IS a top 1% contributor to climate change. He's a multimillionaire whose resource usage, carbon footprint, whatever you wanna talk about, dwarfs that of pretty much every person's on the planet. This is why you don't get to invoke tu quoque in this case, when Bernie's argument rests on the concept of a completely inclusive, MASSIVE effort that should start ASAP to avoid imminent disaster. Unless, again, you're trying to say that Bernie is suicidal and/or does not care about the well being of Americans, in which case he is unfit to be president. Pick your poison.
When actual working class Americans see this - a multimillionaire lifetime politician who does not practice what he preaches in the face of supposedly emergent, catastrophic situations - they see a guy who got to enjoy and use the system to get his bread and then make things more difficult for working class Americans to achieve the same thing...and they are right to suspect that either A) things arent as bad as Bernie is saying B) Bernie is correct but he doesn't care and therefore does not have the qualities of a president
The hypocrisy means a lot when you hype something up as literal impending doom.
|
On February 21 2020 12:54 BerserkSword wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2020 08:45 Mohdoo wrote:On February 21 2020 08:38 Falling wrote: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 Oh please lol. In case you have forgotten, Bernie has been saying catastrophic climate change is an existential threat that requires unprecedented amount of effort to prevent. Unless you are suggesting that Bernie is sucidal or does not care about the well being of future generations of Americans and people around the world, it is NOT tu quoque. The fact of the matter is that Bernie IS a top 1% contributor to climate change. He's a multimillionaire whose resource usage, carbon footprint, whatever you wanna talk about, dwarfs that of pretty much every person's on the planet. This is why you don't get to invoke tu quoque in this case, when Bernie's argument rests on the concept of a completely inclusive, MASSIVE effort that should start ASAP to avoid imminent disaster. Unless, again, you're trying to say that Bernie is suicidal and/or does not care about the well being of Americans, in which case he is unfit to be president. Pick your poison. When actual working class Americans see this - a multimillionaire lifetime politician who does not practice what he preaches in the face of supposedly emergent, catastrophic situations - they see a guy who got to enjoy and use the system to get his bread and then make things more difficult for working class Americans to achieve the same thing. The hypocrisy means a lot when you hype something up as literal impending doom.
Again, show your work. His carbon footprint is bigger than most? How much bigger? Do you have a source?
More to the point, what actions is Bernie taking that negatively impact the environment, and what alternatives were available to him that would have had less negative impact? Because environmental proposals (I haven’t read Bernie’s specifically) tend to focus on replacing high-carbon-footprint activities with lower-footprint alternatives, not cutting all carbon-generating activity entirely.
Pardon my cynicism, but I suspect that:
1) You haven’t actually seen an analysis of Bernie’s carbon footprint, and can’t be bothered to look one up;
2) You have no idea what carbon-generating actions Bernie’s taken or what the more environmental alternatives might be, because
3) you never really gave a shit about the environment, you just wanted an opportunity to dunk on Bernie and this seemed like low-hanging rhetorical fruit.
I’d love to be proven wrong on any or all of the three, though!
|
On February 21 2020 12:54 BerserkSword wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2020 08:45 Mohdoo wrote:On February 21 2020 08:38 Falling wrote: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 Oh please lol. In case you have forgotten, Bernie has been saying catastrophic climate change is an existential threat that requires unprecedented amount of effort to prevent. Unless you are suggesting that Bernie is sucidal or does not care about the well being of future generations of Americans and people around the world, it is NOT tu quoque. The fact of the matter is that Bernie IS a top 1% contributor to climate change. He's a multimillionaire whose resource usage, carbon footprint, whatever you wanna talk about, dwarfs that of pretty much every person's on the planet. This is why you don't get to invoke tu quoque in this case, when Bernie's argument rests on the concept of a completely inclusive, MASSIVE effort that should start ASAP to avoid imminent disaster. Unless, again, you're trying to say that Bernie is suicidal and/or does not care about the well being of Americans, in which case he is unfit to be president. Pick your poison. When actual working class Americans see this - a multimillionaire lifetime politician who does not practice what he preaches in the face of supposedly emergent, catastrophic situations - they see a guy who got to enjoy and use the system to get his bread and then make things more difficult for working class Americans to achieve the same thing...and they are right to suspect that either A) things arent as bad as Bernie is saying B) Bernie is correct but he doesn't care and therefore does not have the qualities of a president The hypocrisy means a lot when you hype something up as literal impending doom.
Other, more well-spoken people will probably respond to this faster than I will, but one of the points brought up in Bernie's defense is that he needs those flights in order to get things done. In order to make his impact at those conferences that he appears at, at those places he campaigns in, and meetings with people that have significant power that he wants to influence, Bernie has likely made a judgement that it's worth flying all those miles because he sees the potential positive change in our fight against climate change from him getting things done at those conferences is worth more than the absolute negative change of him getting on the flights to go to those places. It's an investment on his part, he's spending carbon now in hopes to reduce costs later by passing laws and changing minds in person.
Let's dial this down to an individual scale, mostly unrelated. Say that you're dealing with saving money instead of reducing carbon output. You drive to work every day and you know that a public transit line would be cheaper, so you want one built to your area. This will save many people money, including you. You know that there are some distant friends of yours on the city planning committee that don't have a clear opinion on public transit, and you think that you could convince them if you went to meet them or attended a public meeting this weekend and talked to them about it. You've done your homework, and know that you're one of the best people for the job. Driving out on a weekend when you don't need to costs extra money you could be saving now, but you think that your success convincing them and getting the public transit line built is worth the cost of driving there. After a month or two after the line is built you will have saved back more than the cost of that one trip. Do you see how driving out there is worth it in the long run?
|
On February 21 2020 13:06 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2020 12:54 BerserkSword wrote:On February 21 2020 08:45 Mohdoo wrote:On February 21 2020 08:38 Falling wrote: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 Oh please lol. In case you have forgotten, Bernie has been saying catastrophic climate change is an existential threat that requires unprecedented amount of effort to prevent. Unless you are suggesting that Bernie is sucidal or does not care about the well being of future generations of Americans and people around the world, it is NOT tu quoque. The fact of the matter is that Bernie IS a top 1% contributor to climate change. He's a multimillionaire whose resource usage, carbon footprint, whatever you wanna talk about, dwarfs that of pretty much every person's on the planet. This is why you don't get to invoke tu quoque in this case, when Bernie's argument rests on the concept of a completely inclusive, MASSIVE effort that should start ASAP to avoid imminent disaster. Unless, again, you're trying to say that Bernie is suicidal and/or does not care about the well being of Americans, in which case he is unfit to be president. Pick your poison. When actual working class Americans see this - a multimillionaire lifetime politician who does not practice what he preaches in the face of supposedly emergent, catastrophic situations - they see a guy who got to enjoy and use the system to get his bread and then make things more difficult for working class Americans to achieve the same thing. The hypocrisy means a lot when you hype something up as literal impending doom. Again, show your work. His carbon footprint is bigger than most? How much bigger? Do you have a source? More to the point, what actions is Bernie taking that negatively impact the environment, and what alternatives were available to him that would have had less negative impact? Because environmental proposals (I haven’t read Bernie’s specifically) tend to focus on replacing high-carbon-footprint activities with lower-footprint alternatives, not cutting all carbon-generating activity entirely. Pardon my cynicism, but I suspect that: 1) You haven’t actually seen an analysis of Bernie’s carbon footprint, and can’t be bothered to look one up; 2) You have no idea what carbon-generating actions Bernie’s taken or what the more environmental alternatives might be, because 3) you never really gave a shit about the environment, you just wanted an opportunity to dunk on Bernie and this seemed like low-hanging rhetorical fruit. I’d love to be proven wrong on any or all of the three, though!
For one, Americans have a higher per capita carbon footprint that almost everybody else by a large part. Bernie is an American.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capita
Second, the wealthy people of the world are by FAR the biggest contributors of emissions in the world. Bernie is top 1% of wealth in the world
http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/news/a-rich-american-household-typically-produces-more-carbon-dioxide-emissions-each-year-from-driving-than-the-entire-carbon-footprint-of-a-poor-household-over-8-months/
https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/12/1/16718844/green-consumers-climate-change
(this article says even the "green ones" produce a lot more)
https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/050615/are-you-top-one-percent-world.asp
Bernie is top 1% wealth in world
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jan/10/bernie-sanders-to-increase-private-jet-use-despite/
https://vtdigger.org/2019/10/16/as-sanders-hauls-in-25-million-he-spends-big-on-private-jets-and-amazon/
Private jet use.
I'm not going to scour google to investigate whether or not Bernie has a massive compost in the backyard of one of his homes to offset the massive footprint that comes with being that rich, so if youre looking for something like that, you won't find it from me.
I have no reason to target Bernie specifically. I probably followed him long before most of you even knew who he was.
The fact of the matter is that his actions sometimes straight up contradict his strongest beliefs. And that's what a lot of less biased people like myself see. Whether it's backstabbing Ron Paul when they planned to to try to audit the Fed together. Whether it's literally turning down Jill Stein's offer to become the GREEN PARTY CANDIDATE and instead literally rally for Hillary Clinton around the country (how does a climate doomer turn down the chance to run as the Green Party candidate and then instead back the embodiment of corruption , the thing he claimed vowed to eradicate from washington). Whether it's living the 1% lifestyle with gusto while preaching about impending doom that would be caused by such lifestyles.
As for my opinion on climate change - I don't think massive government intervention on the scale Bernie talks about is warranted to fight this supposed climate catastrophy.
The climate models are based on the Navier-Stokes equations - fluid dynamic equations so poorly understood that there is a million dollar prize for anyone who can solve some (only a few things in physics have this distinguish). As far as I am concerned, science does not support Bernie's climate plan.
|
On February 21 2020 13:33 Howie_Dewitt wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2020 12:54 BerserkSword wrote:On February 21 2020 08:45 Mohdoo wrote:On February 21 2020 08:38 Falling wrote: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 Oh please lol. In case you have forgotten, Bernie has been saying catastrophic climate change is an existential threat that requires unprecedented amount of effort to prevent. Unless you are suggesting that Bernie is sucidal or does not care about the well being of future generations of Americans and people around the world, it is NOT tu quoque. The fact of the matter is that Bernie IS a top 1% contributor to climate change. He's a multimillionaire whose resource usage, carbon footprint, whatever you wanna talk about, dwarfs that of pretty much every person's on the planet. This is why you don't get to invoke tu quoque in this case, when Bernie's argument rests on the concept of a completely inclusive, MASSIVE effort that should start ASAP to avoid imminent disaster. Unless, again, you're trying to say that Bernie is suicidal and/or does not care about the well being of Americans, in which case he is unfit to be president. Pick your poison. When actual working class Americans see this - a multimillionaire lifetime politician who does not practice what he preaches in the face of supposedly emergent, catastrophic situations - they see a guy who got to enjoy and use the system to get his bread and then make things more difficult for working class Americans to achieve the same thing...and they are right to suspect that either A) things arent as bad as Bernie is saying B) Bernie is correct but he doesn't care and therefore does not have the qualities of a president The hypocrisy means a lot when you hype something up as literal impending doom. Other, more well-spoken people will probably respond to this faster than I will, but one of the points brought up in Bernie's defense is that he needs those flights in order to get things done. In order to make his impact at those conferences that he appears at, at those places he campaigns in, and meetings with people that have significant power that he wants to influence, Bernie has likely made a judgement that it's worth flying all those miles because he sees the potential positive change in our fight against climate change from him getting things done at those conferences is worth more than the absolute negative change of him getting on the flights to go to those places. It's an investment on his part, he's spending carbon now in hopes to reduce costs later by passing laws and changing minds in person. Let's dial this down to an individual scale, mostly unrelated. Say that you're dealing with saving money instead of reducing carbon output. You drive to work every day and you know that a public transit line would be cheaper, so you want one built to your area. This will save many people money, including you. You know that there are some distant friends of yours on the city planning committee that don't have a clear opinion on public transit, and you think that you could convince them if you went to meet them or attended a public meeting this weekend and talked to them about it. You've done your homework, and know that you're one of the best people for the job. Driving out on a weekend when you don't need to costs extra money you could be saving now, but you think that your success convincing them and getting the public transit line built is worth the cost of driving there. After a month or two after the line is built you will have saved back more than the cost of that one trip. Do you see how driving out there is worth it in the long run?
3 homes
multimillionaire
believes in carbon credit programs
outspends all democratic rivals on private jets
spends money on private jets to rally for HILLARY CLINTON instead of accepting Jill Stein's godly offer to lead the GREEN PARTY
This is a characteristic of someone who dwarfs pretty much the entire planet in terms of carbon emissions, assuming he is not an anomaly in terms of rich people having large footprints (and it doesnt look like it since he rivals or outspends even Bloomberg in private jet spending)
It's hard to defend all this if you believe in Bernie's concept of catastrophic climate change.
The key difference between your hypothetical scenario and Bernie's situation is that having a public line installed is not an "existential crisis" like Bernie says this climate situation is and that's what makes your hypothetical different
|
Beserk's argument isn't really about Bernie, it is about sustaining a worldview. Which is basically that anyone advocating redistributive/climate policy of this nature is jealous or a hypocrite.
That's just to say arguing the specifics of any individual misses the point.
|
On February 21 2020 13:46 BerserkSword wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2020 13:33 Howie_Dewitt wrote:On February 21 2020 12:54 BerserkSword wrote:On February 21 2020 08:45 Mohdoo wrote:On February 21 2020 08:38 Falling wrote: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:
[quote]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 Oh please lol. In case you have forgotten, Bernie has been saying catastrophic climate change is an existential threat that requires unprecedented amount of effort to prevent. Unless you are suggesting that Bernie is sucidal or does not care about the well being of future generations of Americans and people around the world, it is NOT tu quoque. The fact of the matter is that Bernie IS a top 1% contributor to climate change. He's a multimillionaire whose resource usage, carbon footprint, whatever you wanna talk about, dwarfs that of pretty much every person's on the planet. This is why you don't get to invoke tu quoque in this case, when Bernie's argument rests on the concept of a completely inclusive, MASSIVE effort that should start ASAP to avoid imminent disaster. Unless, again, you're trying to say that Bernie is suicidal and/or does not care about the well being of Americans, in which case he is unfit to be president. Pick your poison. When actual working class Americans see this - a multimillionaire lifetime politician who does not practice what he preaches in the face of supposedly emergent, catastrophic situations - they see a guy who got to enjoy and use the system to get his bread and then make things more difficult for working class Americans to achieve the same thing...and they are right to suspect that either A) things arent as bad as Bernie is saying B) Bernie is correct but he doesn't care and therefore does not have the qualities of a president The hypocrisy means a lot when you hype something up as literal impending doom. Other, more well-spoken people will probably respond to this faster than I will, but one of the points brought up in Bernie's defense is that he needs those flights in order to get things done. In order to make his impact at those conferences that he appears at, at those places he campaigns in, and meetings with people that have significant power that he wants to influence, Bernie has likely made a judgement that it's worth flying all those miles because he sees the potential positive change in our fight against climate change from him getting things done at those conferences is worth more than the absolute negative change of him getting on the flights to go to those places. It's an investment on his part, he's spending carbon now in hopes to reduce costs later by passing laws and changing minds in person. Let's dial this down to an individual scale, mostly unrelated. Say that you're dealing with saving money instead of reducing carbon output. You drive to work every day and you know that a public transit line would be cheaper, so you want one built to your area. This will save many people money, including you. You know that there are some distant friends of yours on the city planning committee that don't have a clear opinion on public transit, and you think that you could convince them if you went to meet them or attended a public meeting this weekend and talked to them about it. You've done your homework, and know that you're one of the best people for the job. Driving out on a weekend when you don't need to costs extra money you could be saving now, but you think that your success convincing them and getting the public transit line built is worth the cost of driving there. After a month or two after the line is built you will have saved back more than the cost of that one trip. Do you see how driving out there is worth it in the long run? 3 homes multimillionaire believes in carbon credit programs outspends all democratic rivals on private jets spends money on private jets to rally for HILLARY CLINTON instead of accepting Jill Stein's godly offer to lead the GREEN PARTY This is a characteristic of someone who dwarfs pretty much the entire planet in terms of carbon emissions, assuming he is not an anomaly in terms of rich people having large footprints (and it doesnt look like it since he rivals or outspends even Bloomberg in private jet spending) It's hard to defend all this if you believe in Bernie's concept of catastrophic climate change. The key difference between your hypothetical scenario and Bernie's situation is that having a public line installed is not an "existential crisis" like Bernie says this climate situation is and that's what makes your hypothetical different
Nobody is going to elect a homeless guy that lives in a cardboard box underneath a bridge because he wants to fight climate change. If they did want to, there'd probably have bullshit arguements about how he doesn't really count because he probably burns things to keep warm in a drum, which isn't very energy efficient and has a carbon foot print.
|
On February 21 2020 13:46 BerserkSword wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2020 13:33 Howie_Dewitt wrote:On February 21 2020 12:54 BerserkSword wrote:On February 21 2020 08:45 Mohdoo wrote:On February 21 2020 08:38 Falling wrote: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:
[quote]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 Oh please lol. In case you have forgotten, Bernie has been saying catastrophic climate change is an existential threat that requires unprecedented amount of effort to prevent. Unless you are suggesting that Bernie is sucidal or does not care about the well being of future generations of Americans and people around the world, it is NOT tu quoque. The fact of the matter is that Bernie IS a top 1% contributor to climate change. He's a multimillionaire whose resource usage, carbon footprint, whatever you wanna talk about, dwarfs that of pretty much every person's on the planet. This is why you don't get to invoke tu quoque in this case, when Bernie's argument rests on the concept of a completely inclusive, MASSIVE effort that should start ASAP to avoid imminent disaster. Unless, again, you're trying to say that Bernie is suicidal and/or does not care about the well being of Americans, in which case he is unfit to be president. Pick your poison. When actual working class Americans see this - a multimillionaire lifetime politician who does not practice what he preaches in the face of supposedly emergent, catastrophic situations - they see a guy who got to enjoy and use the system to get his bread and then make things more difficult for working class Americans to achieve the same thing...and they are right to suspect that either A) things arent as bad as Bernie is saying B) Bernie is correct but he doesn't care and therefore does not have the qualities of a president The hypocrisy means a lot when you hype something up as literal impending doom. Other, more well-spoken people will probably respond to this faster than I will, but one of the points brought up in Bernie's defense is that he needs those flights in order to get things done. In order to make his impact at those conferences that he appears at, at those places he campaigns in, and meetings with people that have significant power that he wants to influence, Bernie has likely made a judgement that it's worth flying all those miles because he sees the potential positive change in our fight against climate change from him getting things done at those conferences is worth more than the absolute negative change of him getting on the flights to go to those places. It's an investment on his part, he's spending carbon now in hopes to reduce costs later by passing laws and changing minds in person. Let's dial this down to an individual scale, mostly unrelated. Say that you're dealing with saving money instead of reducing carbon output. You drive to work every day and you know that a public transit line would be cheaper, so you want one built to your area. This will save many people money, including you. You know that there are some distant friends of yours on the city planning committee that don't have a clear opinion on public transit, and you think that you could convince them if you went to meet them or attended a public meeting this weekend and talked to them about it. You've done your homework, and know that you're one of the best people for the job. Driving out on a weekend when you don't need to costs extra money you could be saving now, but you think that your success convincing them and getting the public transit line built is worth the cost of driving there. After a month or two after the line is built you will have saved back more than the cost of that one trip. Do you see how driving out there is worth it in the long run? 3 homes multimillionaire believes in carbon credit programs outspends all democratic rivals on private jets spends money on private jets to rally for HILLARY CLINTON instead of accepting Jill Stein's godly offer to lead the GREEN PARTY This is a characteristic of someone who dwarfs pretty much the entire planet in terms of carbon emissions, assuming he is not an anomaly in terms of rich people having large footprints (and it doesnt look like it since he rivals or outspends even Bloomberg in private jet spending) It's hard to defend all this if you believe in Bernie's concept of catastrophic climate change. The key difference between your hypothetical scenario and Bernie's situation is that having a public line installed is not an "existential crisis" like Bernie says this climate situation is and that's what makes your hypothetical different
You missed the point of the analogy, which was that you can do something that doesn't work with your plan in the short term in order to secure future gains in the long run. Whether the situation is life-threatening or not isn't relevant to the concept of investment.
Once again, the jets can be seen as paying for themselves in terms of carbon footprint if he gets people to reduce the carbon output of their jurisdictions, and not taking those trips makes him less effective at getting the world to reduce its destruction of the environment. It's not hard to defend if you have ever heard of the investment.
2 of the houses are also necessary for him to do his job, the one in DC so he can work there and the main one in Vermont so he can live in the state he's a senator in.
Accepting an offer to led the green party, which cannot win, and leading some of his supporters to the green party while still not winning or even bring able to, is horrible strategy. Bernie went with the best of the two realistic and viable options at the time in clinton, because he knew that going to a third party is the equivalent of intentionally throwing in a two party system.
I admit that the third house is a stretch though
|
Canada8988 Posts
On February 21 2020 13:46 BerserkSword wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2020 13:33 Howie_Dewitt wrote:On February 21 2020 12:54 BerserkSword wrote:On February 21 2020 08:45 Mohdoo wrote:On February 21 2020 08:38 Falling wrote: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:
[quote]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 Oh please lol. In case you have forgotten, Bernie has been saying catastrophic climate change is an existential threat that requires unprecedented amount of effort to prevent. Unless you are suggesting that Bernie is sucidal or does not care about the well being of future generations of Americans and people around the world, it is NOT tu quoque. The fact of the matter is that Bernie IS a top 1% contributor to climate change. He's a multimillionaire whose resource usage, carbon footprint, whatever you wanna talk about, dwarfs that of pretty much every person's on the planet. This is why you don't get to invoke tu quoque in this case, when Bernie's argument rests on the concept of a completely inclusive, MASSIVE effort that should start ASAP to avoid imminent disaster. Unless, again, you're trying to say that Bernie is suicidal and/or does not care about the well being of Americans, in which case he is unfit to be president. Pick your poison. When actual working class Americans see this - a multimillionaire lifetime politician who does not practice what he preaches in the face of supposedly emergent, catastrophic situations - they see a guy who got to enjoy and use the system to get his bread and then make things more difficult for working class Americans to achieve the same thing...and they are right to suspect that either A) things arent as bad as Bernie is saying B) Bernie is correct but he doesn't care and therefore does not have the qualities of a president The hypocrisy means a lot when you hype something up as literal impending doom. Other, more well-spoken people will probably respond to this faster than I will, but one of the points brought up in Bernie's defense is that he needs those flights in order to get things done. In order to make his impact at those conferences that he appears at, at those places he campaigns in, and meetings with people that have significant power that he wants to influence, Bernie has likely made a judgement that it's worth flying all those miles because he sees the potential positive change in our fight against climate change from him getting things done at those conferences is worth more than the absolute negative change of him getting on the flights to go to those places. It's an investment on his part, he's spending carbon now in hopes to reduce costs later by passing laws and changing minds in person. Let's dial this down to an individual scale, mostly unrelated. Say that you're dealing with saving money instead of reducing carbon output. You drive to work every day and you know that a public transit line would be cheaper, so you want one built to your area. This will save many people money, including you. You know that there are some distant friends of yours on the city planning committee that don't have a clear opinion on public transit, and you think that you could convince them if you went to meet them or attended a public meeting this weekend and talked to them about it. You've done your homework, and know that you're one of the best people for the job. Driving out on a weekend when you don't need to costs extra money you could be saving now, but you think that your success convincing them and getting the public transit line built is worth the cost of driving there. After a month or two after the line is built you will have saved back more than the cost of that one trip. Do you see how driving out there is worth it in the long run? 3 homes multimillionaire believes in carbon credit programs outspends all democratic rivals on private jets spends money on private jets to rally for HILLARY CLINTON instead of accepting Jill Stein's godly offer to lead the GREEN PARTY This is a characteristic of someone who dwarfs pretty much the entire planet in terms of carbon emissions, assuming he is not an anomaly in terms of rich people having large footprints (and it doesnt look like it since he rivals or outspends even Bloomberg in private jet spending) It's hard to defend all this if you believe in Bernie's concept of catastrophic climate change. The key difference between your hypothetical scenario and Bernie's situation is that having a public line installed is not an "existential crisis" like Bernie says this climate situation is and that's what makes your hypothetical different
It's foolish to think climate change will be solve by personnal ethics. Maybe state power isn't it either, but at least it's worth a shot.
Also the problem is not that rich people chose to polute more than everyone else, the problem is that they, and we westerner in general, can do it without a care and that it's better for us.
|
On February 21 2020 09:02 Gorgonoth wrote:Show nested quote +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.
I agree with you that this is the most likely outcome, but now consider the difference between that and what you need in order for Biden to surge back. You don't need Bloomberg to lose a little and Biden to gain back a little, you need Bloomberg to lose everything and go back to 1 or 2% and you need all these votes to go back to Biden. That's not what you described here. What you described here and is Bloomberg dropping, going back to maybe 8-9%, and Biden gaining, going back to 14-15%. That won't be enough.
I don't think it's likely that Bloomberg will gain from this obviously, it was a terrible debate for him. I just think the odds of him gaining are larger than the odds of him losing 80-90% support in the way that you need him to for Biden to come back.
|
On February 21 2020 13:33 BerserkSword wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2020 13:06 ChristianS wrote:On February 21 2020 12:54 BerserkSword wrote:On February 21 2020 08:45 Mohdoo wrote:On February 21 2020 08:38 Falling wrote: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:
[quote]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 Oh please lol. In case you have forgotten, Bernie has been saying catastrophic climate change is an existential threat that requires unprecedented amount of effort to prevent. Unless you are suggesting that Bernie is sucidal or does not care about the well being of future generations of Americans and people around the world, it is NOT tu quoque. The fact of the matter is that Bernie IS a top 1% contributor to climate change. He's a multimillionaire whose resource usage, carbon footprint, whatever you wanna talk about, dwarfs that of pretty much every person's on the planet. This is why you don't get to invoke tu quoque in this case, when Bernie's argument rests on the concept of a completely inclusive, MASSIVE effort that should start ASAP to avoid imminent disaster. Unless, again, you're trying to say that Bernie is suicidal and/or does not care about the well being of Americans, in which case he is unfit to be president. Pick your poison. When actual working class Americans see this - a multimillionaire lifetime politician who does not practice what he preaches in the face of supposedly emergent, catastrophic situations - they see a guy who got to enjoy and use the system to get his bread and then make things more difficult for working class Americans to achieve the same thing. The hypocrisy means a lot when you hype something up as literal impending doom. Again, show your work. His carbon footprint is bigger than most? How much bigger? Do you have a source? More to the point, what actions is Bernie taking that negatively impact the environment, and what alternatives were available to him that would have had less negative impact? Because environmental proposals (I haven’t read Bernie’s specifically) tend to focus on replacing high-carbon-footprint activities with lower-footprint alternatives, not cutting all carbon-generating activity entirely. Pardon my cynicism, but I suspect that: 1) You haven’t actually seen an analysis of Bernie’s carbon footprint, and can’t be bothered to look one up; 2) You have no idea what carbon-generating actions Bernie’s taken or what the more environmental alternatives might be, because 3) you never really gave a shit about the environment, you just wanted an opportunity to dunk on Bernie and this seemed like low-hanging rhetorical fruit. I’d love to be proven wrong on any or all of the three, though! For one, Americans have a higher per capita carbon footprint that almost everybody else by a large part. Bernie is an American. source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions_per_capitaSecond, the wealthy people of the world are by FAR the biggest contributors of emissions in the world. Bernie is top 1% of wealth in the world http://www.lse.ac.uk/GranthamInstitute/news/a-rich-american-household-typically-produces-more-carbon-dioxide-emissions-each-year-from-driving-than-the-entire-carbon-footprint-of-a-poor-household-over-8-months/https://www.vox.com/energy-and-environment/2017/12/1/16718844/green-consumers-climate-change(this article says even the "green ones" produce a lot more) https://www.investopedia.com/articles/personal-finance/050615/are-you-top-one-percent-world.aspBernie is top 1% wealth in world https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2020/jan/10/bernie-sanders-to-increase-private-jet-use-despite/https://vtdigger.org/2019/10/16/as-sanders-hauls-in-25-million-he-spends-big-on-private-jets-and-amazon/Private jet use. I'm not going to scour google to investigate whether or not Bernie has a massive compost in the backyard of one of his homes to offset the massive footprint that comes with being that rich, so if youre looking for something like that, you won't find it from me. I have no reason to target Bernie specifically. I probably followed him long before most of you even knew who he was. The fact of the matter is that his actions sometimes straight up contradict his strongest beliefs. And that's what a lot of less biased people like myself see. Whether it's backstabbing Ron Paul when they planned to to try to audit the Fed together. Whether it's literally turning down Jill Stein's offer to become the GREEN PARTY CANDIDATE and instead literally rally for Hillary Clinton around the country (how does a climate doomer turn down the chance to run as the Green Party candidate and then instead back the embodiment of corruption , the thing he claimed vowed to eradicate from washington). Whether it's living the 1% lifestyle with gusto while preaching about impending doom that would be caused by such lifestyles. As for my opinion on climate change - I don't think massive government intervention on the scale Bernie talks about is warranted to fight this supposed climate catastrophy. The climate models are based on the Navier-Stokes equations - fluid dynamic equations so poorly understood that there is a million dollar prize for anyone who can solve some (only a few things in physics have this distinguish). As far as I am concerned, science does not support Bernie's climate plan.
I guess I don’t know what I was hoping for here. It’s hard to take the “working class Americans will see Bernie for the hypocrite he is” talk seriously when your opening salvo was “Americans pollute -> Bernie is American -> Bernie pollutes, QED.” Ah yes, working class Americans will never support Bernie for president until he puts his money where his mouth is and renounces his citizenship, right?
The criticisms are just so... half-baked. Most of your citations are not even arguments for “Bernie pollutes,” they’re arguments for “(wealthy, where wealthy means >$40,000/year) Americans pollute,” with virtually no attempt to even bother establishing whether Bernie is doing more or less polluting than a replacement-level reasonably-wealthy American. The only climate criticism you level at Bernie specifically is private jet usage, ignoring entirely that those flights were almost certainly compensated with carbon offsets so their carbon footprint is technically zero. More to the point, there’s zero attempt to actually talk about “this was done, that should have been done instead, the reduction in carbon footprint of that substitution would be this big.” Once you established “Bernie’s not practicing what he preaches” we could start talking about tu quoque and how attacking Bernie himself isn’t engaging with his argument, but you haven’t done virtually any legwork to even make the hypocrisy argument land.
I suspect that GH is right, and this all has very little to do with Bernie specifically. If you’re committed to a worldview of total personal freedom and autonomy (in a word, libertarianism), the idea of large-scale, coordinated societal efforts to reduce consumption of limited global resources is going to sound pretty bad, and you’re likely to dismiss what you can, lash out at the messenger, kick and scream about hypocrisy - anything you can to avoid engaging on the merits as long as possible.
I can’t help but wonder - what would it take to accept climate change as sobering reality, rather than try to pretend it out of existence? You can toss out a couple dismissive sentences about how physicists’ math is arcane and useless. I’m a chemist, you’ll hear no argument from me. But logically, it doesn’t do much to invalidate the massive and growing body of multidisciplinary scientific work in support of the hypothesis - work that is making increasingly specific predictions that are bearing out more and more as time goes on.
It’s easy to dismiss right now! The math, as you note, is arcane and opaque, the predictions are abstract and uninteresting, and the denial market is going strong. It’s easy to shrug and say “eh, experts are wrong sometimes.”
But, uh, sometimes they’re not. And if you commit too hard to denialism, because acceptance is inconvenient to your ideology, you increasingly bring about a world in which the fate of your ideology is tied to the plausibility of your denialism. And if the experts are right, that plausibility isn’t likely to improve.
|
Northern Ireland23824 Posts
On February 21 2020 12:54 BerserkSword wrote:Show nested quote +On February 21 2020 08:45 Mohdoo wrote:On February 21 2020 08:38 Falling wrote: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 Oh please lol. In case you have forgotten, Bernie has been saying catastrophic climate change is an existential threat that requires unprecedented amount of effort to prevent. Unless you are suggesting that Bernie is sucidal or does not care about the well being of future generations of Americans and people around the world, it is NOT tu quoque. The fact of the matter is that Bernie IS a top 1% contributor to climate change. He's a multimillionaire whose resource usage, carbon footprint, whatever you wanna talk about, dwarfs that of pretty much every person's on the planet. This is why you don't get to invoke tu quoque in this case, when Bernie's argument rests on the concept of a completely inclusive, MASSIVE effort that should start ASAP to avoid imminent disaster. Unless, again, you're trying to say that Bernie is suicidal and/or does not care about the well being of Americans, in which case he is unfit to be president. Pick your poison. When actual working class Americans see this - a multimillionaire lifetime politician who does not practice what he preaches in the face of supposedly emergent, catastrophic situations - they see a guy who got to enjoy and use the system to get his bread and then make things more difficult for working class Americans to achieve the same thing...and they are right to suspect that either A) things arent as bad as Bernie is saying B) Bernie is correct but he doesn't care and therefore does not have the qualities of a president The hypocrisy means a lot when you hype something up as literal impending doom.
Except for the rest of his platform being about redressing the decline in that social mobility that people of his generation enjoyed compared to the Americans that came after.
He’s also not proposing a drop in living standards either, just retooling things. Anyway the environment is a big part of his platform yes but it’s not even the biggest draw.
It’s akin to the old gotcha ‘oh you criticise capitalism but you use a smartphone’ level of not being an incidence of hypocrisy.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
