|
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 |
On April 09 2020 23:55 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2020 23:52 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 09 2020 22:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
It also triggers me pretty hard when people say they have no idea what Joe Biden's platforms are. Like, you spend five hours a day on the internet and you've never heard of Google? So many people are willfully ignorant of the positions of the candidates... and just plain lazy. It takes like a half hour to do a reasonably deep dive into the policy ideas that a candidate has, starting at the candidates' websites that they literally created to elaborate on their positions. When the electorate doesn't want to be informed, there's not much else we can do. You don't understand. Once people have decided that they cannot vote for someone, people simply reject all of that candidates positions that they support as lies they would never implement to make themselves feel better. The internet makes that easier, not harder, because it's easier to find reasons to support the positions are lies. That's exactly what happened with Clinton in 2016 and will happen forever. The saving grace this time may be that nowhere near as many people hate Biden as hated Clinton. Biden had to drop out of a previous presidential race for lying. Saying the people that are skeptical of his rhetoric are being irrational sounds ridiculous.
I mean, anyone who cannot be persuaded to adopt a contrary position because of a 100% certain prior is acting irrationally. That's just how non-symbolic logic and reasoning works. It literally causes a breakdown of the whole concept of gaining new information.
When someone says "there is nothing that can be done to change my mind" it means they have decided to abandon new information. That's rarely rational when discussing potential outcomes. When there is nothing that can be done to convince you Biden supports a position-even a world where Biden allows that position to pass-it means that your predictions of Biden's future actions are pretty much not worth considering.
|
On April 09 2020 23:57 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2020 23:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2020 23:52 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 09 2020 22:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
It also triggers me pretty hard when people say they have no idea what Joe Biden's platforms are. Like, you spend five hours a day on the internet and you've never heard of Google? So many people are willfully ignorant of the positions of the candidates... and just plain lazy. It takes like a half hour to do a reasonably deep dive into the policy ideas that a candidate has, starting at the candidates' websites that they literally created to elaborate on their positions. When the electorate doesn't want to be informed, there's not much else we can do. You don't understand. Once people have decided that they cannot vote for someone, people simply reject all of that candidates positions that they support as lies they would never implement to make themselves feel better. The internet makes that easier, not harder, because it's easier to find reasons to support the positions are lies. That's exactly what happened with Clinton in 2016 and will happen forever. The saving grace this time may be that nowhere near as many people hate Biden as hated Clinton. Biden had to drop out of a previous presidential race for lying. Saying the people that are skeptical of his rhetoric are being irrational sounds ridiculous. I mean, anyone cannot be persuaded to adopt a contrary position because of a 100% certain prior is acting irrationally. That's just how non-symbolic logic and reasoning works. It literally causes a breakdown of the whole concept of gaining new information.
I'm not saying that. I'm saying you can't take him at his word. If someone takes liars at their word they're what we call a moron where I come from.
It's also not like he wasn't part of the Obama administration that did a 180 on accountability for banksters from his campaign rhetoric (prior to them donating millions to his campaign efforts). As someone has noted, Biden confirmed to donors that "nothing will fundamentally change" as well.
When someone says "there is nothing that can be done to change my mind" + Show Spoiler +it means they have decided to abandon new information. That's rarely rational when discussing potential outcomes. When there is nothing that can be done to convince you Biden supports a position-even a world where Biden allows that position to pass-it means that your predictions of Biden's future actions are pretty much not worth considering.
You're the only one I've noticed say that?
|
On April 10 2020 00:00 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2020 23:57 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 09 2020 23:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2020 23:52 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 09 2020 22:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
It also triggers me pretty hard when people say they have no idea what Joe Biden's platforms are. Like, you spend five hours a day on the internet and you've never heard of Google? So many people are willfully ignorant of the positions of the candidates... and just plain lazy. It takes like a half hour to do a reasonably deep dive into the policy ideas that a candidate has, starting at the candidates' websites that they literally created to elaborate on their positions. When the electorate doesn't want to be informed, there's not much else we can do. You don't understand. Once people have decided that they cannot vote for someone, people simply reject all of that candidates positions that they support as lies they would never implement to make themselves feel better. The internet makes that easier, not harder, because it's easier to find reasons to support the positions are lies. That's exactly what happened with Clinton in 2016 and will happen forever. The saving grace this time may be that nowhere near as many people hate Biden as hated Clinton. Biden had to drop out of a previous presidential race for lying. Saying the people that are skeptical of his rhetoric are being irrational sounds ridiculous. I mean, anyone cannot be persuaded to adopt a contrary position because of a 100% certain prior is acting irrationally. That's just how non-symbolic logic and reasoning works. It literally causes a breakdown of the whole concept of gaining new information. I'm not saying that. I'm saying you can't take him at his word. If someone takes liars at their word they're what we call a moron where I come from. It's also not like he wasn't part of the Obama administration that did a 180 on accountability for banksters from his campaign rhetoric (prior to them donating millions to his campaign efforts). You're the only one I've noticed say that?
I'm not sure where I've even said that. But what could Biden and his campaign do to make you vote for Biden given that you believe he's a liar?
Or, what new information could change your mind and think that Biden is more likely to beat Trump than Sanders?
|
On April 10 2020 00:09 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2020 00:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2020 23:57 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 09 2020 23:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2020 23:52 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 09 2020 22:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
It also triggers me pretty hard when people say they have no idea what Joe Biden's platforms are. Like, you spend five hours a day on the internet and you've never heard of Google? So many people are willfully ignorant of the positions of the candidates... and just plain lazy. It takes like a half hour to do a reasonably deep dive into the policy ideas that a candidate has, starting at the candidates' websites that they literally created to elaborate on their positions. When the electorate doesn't want to be informed, there's not much else we can do. You don't understand. Once people have decided that they cannot vote for someone, people simply reject all of that candidates positions that they support as lies they would never implement to make themselves feel better. The internet makes that easier, not harder, because it's easier to find reasons to support the positions are lies. That's exactly what happened with Clinton in 2016 and will happen forever. The saving grace this time may be that nowhere near as many people hate Biden as hated Clinton. Biden had to drop out of a previous presidential race for lying. Saying the people that are skeptical of his rhetoric are being irrational sounds ridiculous. I mean, anyone cannot be persuaded to adopt a contrary position because of a 100% certain prior is acting irrationally. That's just how non-symbolic logic and reasoning works. It literally causes a breakdown of the whole concept of gaining new information. I'm not saying that. I'm saying you can't take him at his word. If someone takes liars at their word they're what we call a moron where I come from. It's also not like he wasn't part of the Obama administration that did a 180 on accountability for banksters from his campaign rhetoric (prior to them donating millions to his campaign efforts). When someone says "there is nothing that can be done to change my mind" You're the only one I've noticed say that? I'm not sure where I've even said that. But what could be done to make you vote for Biden given that you believe he's a liar?
It's in the quote, no idea who you think said it?
To be fair, I've said I wouldn't be voting for Bernie either because of his (limited but too much for me) support of US imperialism. But a mea culpa, sincere apologies (still hasn't given a satisfactory one directly to Anita Hill speaking of the SCOTUS aspect), is where he should have started.
EDIT: When you say "you believe he's a liar" are you taking the position that his history of lying including during this campaign doesn't indicate he's a liar? Or are we both acknowledging the fact that lying ended a previous presidential campaign of his and he's lied multiple times during this one?
|
The US head of state declares that the citizens must have the pandemic "quickly forgotten", implying that there is nothing for the country to learn from and possibly fix in the system, and have the "economy BOOM" to improve his re-election chances.
|
On April 10 2020 00:18 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2020 00:09 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 10 2020 00:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2020 23:57 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 09 2020 23:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2020 23:52 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 09 2020 22:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
It also triggers me pretty hard when people say they have no idea what Joe Biden's platforms are. Like, you spend five hours a day on the internet and you've never heard of Google? So many people are willfully ignorant of the positions of the candidates... and just plain lazy. It takes like a half hour to do a reasonably deep dive into the policy ideas that a candidate has, starting at the candidates' websites that they literally created to elaborate on their positions. When the electorate doesn't want to be informed, there's not much else we can do. You don't understand. Once people have decided that they cannot vote for someone, people simply reject all of that candidates positions that they support as lies they would never implement to make themselves feel better. The internet makes that easier, not harder, because it's easier to find reasons to support the positions are lies. That's exactly what happened with Clinton in 2016 and will happen forever. The saving grace this time may be that nowhere near as many people hate Biden as hated Clinton. Biden had to drop out of a previous presidential race for lying. Saying the people that are skeptical of his rhetoric are being irrational sounds ridiculous. I mean, anyone cannot be persuaded to adopt a contrary position because of a 100% certain prior is acting irrationally. That's just how non-symbolic logic and reasoning works. It literally causes a breakdown of the whole concept of gaining new information. I'm not saying that. I'm saying you can't take him at his word. If someone takes liars at their word they're what we call a moron where I come from. It's also not like he wasn't part of the Obama administration that did a 180 on accountability for banksters from his campaign rhetoric (prior to them donating millions to his campaign efforts). When someone says "there is nothing that can be done to change my mind" You're the only one I've noticed say that? I'm not sure where I've even said that. But what could be done to make you vote for Biden given that you believe he's a liar? It's in the quote, no idea who you think said it? To be fair, I've said I wouldn't be voting for Bernie either because of his (limited but too much for me) support of US imperialism. But a mea culpa, sincere apologies ( still hasn't given a satisfactory one directly to Anita Hill speaking of the SCOTUS aspect), is where he should have started. EDIT: When you say "you believe he's a liar" are you taking the position that his history of lying including during this campaign doesn't indicate he's a liar? Or are we both acknowledging the fact that lying ended a previous presidential campaign of his and he's lied multiple times during this one?
I'm not 100% certain of anything in that post.
My statement that people who have arrived at 100% certainty find it easier, not harder, to reject new information that would make their conclusion less valid in the digital age? I'm not 100% certain of that-it's mostly based on observations of online (especially conspiracy) and academic communities and their reactions to new information. But I think it's pretty likely. That this happened with Clinton? I'm also not 100% certain of that-I could imagine studies that would change my mind.
That someone who has a 100% certain prior is acting irrationally? I guess that's kind of close to an axiom-but if I see a new non-Bayesian structure that allows for the improvements of prediction and probabilistic decision making (some extension of true symbolic logic to prediction) then I'd entertain it.
My mind could change about all kinds of things. I can imagine information that would lead to situations where in November I vote for Biden, Trump, a write-in for Sanders, a third party candidate (even the Flying Spaghetti Monster). Some of those are much less likely than others. But, especially given their overall milquetoast nature, I am inclined to believe that the positions on Biden's website are probably more likely to happen with him in office than without (and even than with a random person in his stead)-I don't think there is hidden opposition deep in his soul to them. He lacks the soul for that, just as Clinton did.
|
I can't really get over this back and forth, even as much as I contributed to it...
Biden sent people to die in order to deal a death blow to his opponent who was basically out of the race.
Like how in the world can you be surprised that people refuse to vote for him?
|
On April 10 2020 00:39 Logo wrote:
I can't really get over this back and forth, even as much as I contributed to it...
Biden sent people to die in order to deal a death blow to his opponent who was basically out of the race.
Like how in the world can you be surprised that people refuse to vote for him?
What the fuck are you talking about? Biden went to WI and forced their SC to overturn the governor?
Biden can say all he want but at the end of the day he had no power over WI SC
|
On April 10 2020 00:31 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2020 00:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2020 00:09 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 10 2020 00:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2020 23:57 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 09 2020 23:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2020 23:52 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 09 2020 22:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
It also triggers me pretty hard when people say they have no idea what Joe Biden's platforms are. Like, you spend five hours a day on the internet and you've never heard of Google? So many people are willfully ignorant of the positions of the candidates... and just plain lazy. It takes like a half hour to do a reasonably deep dive into the policy ideas that a candidate has, starting at the candidates' websites that they literally created to elaborate on their positions. When the electorate doesn't want to be informed, there's not much else we can do. You don't understand. Once people have decided that they cannot vote for someone, people simply reject all of that candidates positions that they support as lies they would never implement to make themselves feel better. The internet makes that easier, not harder, because it's easier to find reasons to support the positions are lies. That's exactly what happened with Clinton in 2016 and will happen forever. The saving grace this time may be that nowhere near as many people hate Biden as hated Clinton. Biden had to drop out of a previous presidential race for lying. Saying the people that are skeptical of his rhetoric are being irrational sounds ridiculous. I mean, anyone cannot be persuaded to adopt a contrary position because of a 100% certain prior is acting irrationally. That's just how non-symbolic logic and reasoning works. It literally causes a breakdown of the whole concept of gaining new information. I'm not saying that. I'm saying you can't take him at his word. If someone takes liars at their word they're what we call a moron where I come from. It's also not like he wasn't part of the Obama administration that did a 180 on accountability for banksters from his campaign rhetoric (prior to them donating millions to his campaign efforts). When someone says "there is nothing that can be done to change my mind" You're the only one I've noticed say that? I'm not sure where I've even said that. But what could be done to make you vote for Biden given that you believe he's a liar? It's in the quote, no idea who you think said it? To be fair, I've said I wouldn't be voting for Bernie either because of his (limited but too much for me) support of US imperialism. But a mea culpa, sincere apologies ( still hasn't given a satisfactory one directly to Anita Hill speaking of the SCOTUS aspect), is where he should have started. EDIT: When you say "you believe he's a liar" are you taking the position that his history of lying including during this campaign doesn't indicate he's a liar? Or are we both acknowledging the fact that lying ended a previous presidential campaign of his and he's lied multiple times during this one? I'm not 100% certain of anything in that post. My statement that people who have arrived at 100% certainty find it easier, not harder, to reject new information that would make their conclusion less valid in the digital age? I'm not 100% certain of that-it's mostly based on observations of online (especially conspiracy) and academic communities and their reactions to new information. But I think it's pretty likely. That this happened with Clinton? I'm also not 100% certain of that-I could imagine studies that would change my mind. That someone who has a 100% certain prior is acting irrationally? I guess that's kind of close to an axiom-but if I see a new non-Bayesian structure that allows for the improvements of prediction and probabilistic decision making (some extension of true symbolic logic to prediction) then I'd entertain it. My mind could change about all kinds of things. I can imagine information that would lead to situations where in November I vote for Biden, Trump, a write-in for Sanders, a third party candidate (even the Flying Spaghetti Monster). Some of those are much less likely than others. But, especially given their overall milquetoast nature, I am inclined to believe that the positions on Biden's website are probably more likely to happen with him in office than without (and even than with a random person in his stead)-I don't think there is hidden opposition deep in his soul to them. He lacks the soul for that, just as Clinton did.
You can abandon the strawman of someone with 100% certainty then. I don't have 100% certainty that when I put my foot down it won't fall through the earth, but we have to operate in the world on some presumptions grounded in past and mutual experiences and analysis (which you acknowledge anyway).
Supporting the racist, kid caging, liar that's probably a rapist because you/Democrats think it's more likely some policies happen with him in power than not (regardless of his trustworthiness to bring them about) is the same calculus Republicans do when they support a racist, kid caging liar that's probably a rapist, is my point.
|
On April 10 2020 00:47 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2020 00:39 Logo wrote:
I can't really get over this back and forth, even as much as I contributed to it...
Biden sent people to die in order to deal a death blow to his opponent who was basically out of the race.
Like how in the world can you be surprised that people refuse to vote for him? What the fuck are you talking about? Biden went to WI and forced their SC to overturn the governor? Biden can say all he want but at the end of the day he had no power over WI SC
1. he didn't say anything for WI other than "the state should decide" which is cowardly. Sanders both called on them to delay and suspended all get out the vote efforts so that people wouldn't endanger themselves by going to the polls.
+ Show Spoiler +
"Well, the answer is I'd listen to the scientists. Having a convention, having tens of thousands of people in one arena is very different than having people walk into a polling booth with accurate spacing, 6 to 10 feet apart, one at a time going in and having machines scrubbed down," Biden said during a virtual press conference on Thursday.
"I think you can hold the election as well dealing with mail-in ballots and same day registration. I mean there's a lot of things that can be done. That's for the Wisconsin courts and folks to decide, but I think it's possible to do both...And I think it could be done based on what I've been hearing from the news and what I understand the governor and others are saying. But that's for them to decide," Biden added.
2. More specifically I was referring to this tweet. This was known misinformation at the time and was a dangerous thing to tell people to do.
https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1239200647616004096?s=20
|
On April 10 2020 00:47 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2020 00:39 Logo wrote:
I can't really get over this back and forth, even as much as I contributed to it...
Biden sent people to die in order to deal a death blow to his opponent who was basically out of the race.
Like how in the world can you be surprised that people refuse to vote for him? What the fuck are you talking about? Biden went to WI and forced their SC to overturn the governor? Biden can say all he want but at the end of the day he had no power over WI SC To be fair he said in person voting could be done safely, which might technically be possible but practically is preposterous.
And he also said they could do mail-in voting but that in the end its up to WI to decide.
|
On April 10 2020 00:48 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2020 00:31 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 10 2020 00:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2020 00:09 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 10 2020 00:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2020 23:57 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 09 2020 23:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2020 23:52 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 09 2020 22:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
It also triggers me pretty hard when people say they have no idea what Joe Biden's platforms are. Like, you spend five hours a day on the internet and you've never heard of Google? So many people are willfully ignorant of the positions of the candidates... and just plain lazy. It takes like a half hour to do a reasonably deep dive into the policy ideas that a candidate has, starting at the candidates' websites that they literally created to elaborate on their positions. When the electorate doesn't want to be informed, there's not much else we can do. You don't understand. Once people have decided that they cannot vote for someone, people simply reject all of that candidates positions that they support as lies they would never implement to make themselves feel better. The internet makes that easier, not harder, because it's easier to find reasons to support the positions are lies. That's exactly what happened with Clinton in 2016 and will happen forever. The saving grace this time may be that nowhere near as many people hate Biden as hated Clinton. Biden had to drop out of a previous presidential race for lying. Saying the people that are skeptical of his rhetoric are being irrational sounds ridiculous. I mean, anyone cannot be persuaded to adopt a contrary position because of a 100% certain prior is acting irrationally. That's just how non-symbolic logic and reasoning works. It literally causes a breakdown of the whole concept of gaining new information. I'm not saying that. I'm saying you can't take him at his word. If someone takes liars at their word they're what we call a moron where I come from. It's also not like he wasn't part of the Obama administration that did a 180 on accountability for banksters from his campaign rhetoric (prior to them donating millions to his campaign efforts). When someone says "there is nothing that can be done to change my mind" You're the only one I've noticed say that? I'm not sure where I've even said that. But what could be done to make you vote for Biden given that you believe he's a liar? It's in the quote, no idea who you think said it? To be fair, I've said I wouldn't be voting for Bernie either because of his (limited but too much for me) support of US imperialism. But a mea culpa, sincere apologies ( still hasn't given a satisfactory one directly to Anita Hill speaking of the SCOTUS aspect), is where he should have started. EDIT: When you say "you believe he's a liar" are you taking the position that his history of lying including during this campaign doesn't indicate he's a liar? Or are we both acknowledging the fact that lying ended a previous presidential campaign of his and he's lied multiple times during this one? I'm not 100% certain of anything in that post. My statement that people who have arrived at 100% certainty find it easier, not harder, to reject new information that would make their conclusion less valid in the digital age? I'm not 100% certain of that-it's mostly based on observations of online (especially conspiracy) and academic communities and their reactions to new information. But I think it's pretty likely. That this happened with Clinton? I'm also not 100% certain of that-I could imagine studies that would change my mind. That someone who has a 100% certain prior is acting irrationally? I guess that's kind of close to an axiom-but if I see a new non-Bayesian structure that allows for the improvements of prediction and probabilistic decision making (some extension of true symbolic logic to prediction) then I'd entertain it. My mind could change about all kinds of things. I can imagine information that would lead to situations where in November I vote for Biden, Trump, a write-in for Sanders, a third party candidate (even the Flying Spaghetti Monster). Some of those are much less likely than others. But, especially given their overall milquetoast nature, I am inclined to believe that the positions on Biden's website are probably more likely to happen with him in office than without (and even than with a random person in his stead)-I don't think there is hidden opposition deep in his soul to them. He lacks the soul for that, just as Clinton did. You can abandon the strawman of someone with 100% certainty then. I don't have 100% certainty that when I put my foot down it won't fall through the earth, but we have to operate in the world on some presumptions grounded in past and mutual experiences and analysis (which you acknowledge anyway). Supporting the racist, kid caging, liar that's probably a rapist because you think it's more likely some policies happen with him in power than not (regardless of his trustworthiness to bring them about) is the same calculus Republicans do when they support a racist, kid caging liar that's probably a rapist, is my point.
To have a strawman you need to be arguing against someone's position! I quoted DPB for a reason because I wanted to point out that increasing access to information makes it easier to reason backwards from 100% certainty and less likely for people's minds to change. Do you not think that's the case? Do you think that did not happen with the Clinton candidacy? Do you think that will not happen in 2020 for both Biden and Trump and did not already happen in 2020 for Sanders?
What frustrates me more than anything is that I am pretty sure you recognize all that. But where-ever that happening would currently serve your goals, you might try to take advantage of it.
|
On April 10 2020 00:50 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2020 00:47 IyMoon wrote:On April 10 2020 00:39 Logo wrote:
I can't really get over this back and forth, even as much as I contributed to it...
Biden sent people to die in order to deal a death blow to his opponent who was basically out of the race.
Like how in the world can you be surprised that people refuse to vote for him? What the fuck are you talking about? Biden went to WI and forced their SC to overturn the governor? Biden can say all he want but at the end of the day he had no power over WI SC 1. he didn't say anything for WI other than "the state should decide" which is cowardly. Sanders both called on them to delay and suspended all get out the vote efforts so that people wouldn't endanger themselves by going to the polls. + Show Spoiler +
"Well, the answer is I'd listen to the scientists. Having a convention, having tens of thousands of people in one arena is very different than having people walk into a polling booth with accurate spacing, 6 to 10 feet apart, one at a time going in and having machines scrubbed down," Biden said during a virtual press conference on Thursday.
"I think you can hold the election as well dealing with mail-in ballots and same day registration. I mean there's a lot of things that can be done. That's for the Wisconsin courts and folks to decide, but I think it's possible to do both...And I think it could be done based on what I've been hearing from the news and what I understand the governor and others are saying. But that's for them to decide," Biden added.
2. More specifically I was referring to this tweet. This was known misinformation at the time and was a dangerous thing to tell people to do. https://twitter.com/JoeBiden/status/1239200647616004096?s=20
I don't really see that tweet as 'sending people to die'. The man said vote if you're healthy and also his second tweet is how voting by mail is also a good choice.
Now in all fairness, I think the election should have been delayed and I really disagree with the WI SC forcing it. That being said, theres no way in hell you could say Biden sent people out to die with a straight face.
|
One of the most dangerous things about this virus is that it can spread even before you're showing symptoms. it can take up to 14 days where you have it and spread it but don't have any symptoms. To tell people that it's okay to vote if they feel fine and don't have any symptoms is extremely misleading and dangerous and goes against everything that we knew about the virus for months
This is exactly how it spreads out of control, biden is being no more responsible than the spring breakers with this
|
On April 10 2020 01:09 TomatoBisque wrote:
One of the most dangerous things about this virus is that it can spread even before you're showing symptoms it can take up to 14 days where you have it and spread it but don't have any symptoms. To tell people that it's okay to vote if they feel fine and don't have any symptoms is extremely misleading and dangerous and goes against everything that we knew about the virus for months
The man didn't tell you to lick the damn polling booth. Voting when following guidelines is about as dangerous as going to the grocery store. Yet nobody sends people to die for telling them to get food.
|
On April 10 2020 01:12 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2020 01:09 TomatoBisque wrote:
One of the most dangerous things about this virus is that it can spread even before you're showing symptoms it can take up to 14 days where you have it and spread it but don't have any symptoms. To tell people that it's okay to vote if they feel fine and don't have any symptoms is extremely misleading and dangerous and goes against everything that we knew about the virus for months The man didn't tell you to lick the damn polling booth. Voting when following guidelines is about as dangerous as going to the grocery store. Yet nobody sends people to die for telling them to get food.
This is such a disingenuous comparison, people need food to live and many grocery stores have implemented policies to limit the risk.
I don't lick game boxes at gamestop but they still shut down along with 1000s of other non-essential businesses
|
Lambasting someone's comparison as disingenuous while comparing voting in a primary to shopping at Gamestop is not very persuasive.
|
On April 10 2020 01:15 TomatoBisque wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2020 01:12 IyMoon wrote:On April 10 2020 01:09 TomatoBisque wrote:
One of the most dangerous things about this virus is that it can spread even before you're showing symptoms it can take up to 14 days where you have it and spread it but don't have any symptoms. To tell people that it's okay to vote if they feel fine and don't have any symptoms is extremely misleading and dangerous and goes against everything that we knew about the virus for months The man didn't tell you to lick the damn polling booth. Voting when following guidelines is about as dangerous as going to the grocery store. Yet nobody sends people to die for telling them to get food. This is such a disingenuous comparison, people need food to live and many grocery stores have implemented policies to limit the risk.I don't lick game boxes at gamestop but they still shut down along with 1000s of other non-essential businesses
Are you telling me voting stations didn't have policies to limit the risk? Was it just everyone standing asses to elbows despite knowing the 6 foot distance rule?
I know there were some really long lines and it was horrible but there was also drive up voting where you handed someone in PPE your ballot and drove off after they put it in the machine.
This idea that biden sends people to die by saying vote if their is an election is just a horrible argument.
Can you be upset biden punted to the state? Sure, thats a fine one
Can you be upset that the sate held the election in the first place? Again, go for it
Did Biden send people out to die? You have to be high to believe this line of attack and people should be better than that
|
On April 10 2020 01:03 TheTenthDoc wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2020 00:48 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2020 00:31 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 10 2020 00:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2020 00:09 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 10 2020 00:00 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2020 23:57 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 09 2020 23:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 09 2020 23:52 TheTenthDoc wrote:On April 09 2020 22:20 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
It also triggers me pretty hard when people say they have no idea what Joe Biden's platforms are. Like, you spend five hours a day on the internet and you've never heard of Google? So many people are willfully ignorant of the positions of the candidates... and just plain lazy. It takes like a half hour to do a reasonably deep dive into the policy ideas that a candidate has, starting at the candidates' websites that they literally created to elaborate on their positions. When the electorate doesn't want to be informed, there's not much else we can do. You don't understand. Once people have decided that they cannot vote for someone, people simply reject all of that candidates positions that they support as lies they would never implement to make themselves feel better. The internet makes that easier, not harder, because it's easier to find reasons to support the positions are lies. That's exactly what happened with Clinton in 2016 and will happen forever. The saving grace this time may be that nowhere near as many people hate Biden as hated Clinton. Biden had to drop out of a previous presidential race for lying. Saying the people that are skeptical of his rhetoric are being irrational sounds ridiculous. I mean, anyone cannot be persuaded to adopt a contrary position because of a 100% certain prior is acting irrationally. That's just how non-symbolic logic and reasoning works. It literally causes a breakdown of the whole concept of gaining new information. I'm not saying that. I'm saying you can't take him at his word. If someone takes liars at their word they're what we call a moron where I come from. It's also not like he wasn't part of the Obama administration that did a 180 on accountability for banksters from his campaign rhetoric (prior to them donating millions to his campaign efforts). When someone says "there is nothing that can be done to change my mind" You're the only one I've noticed say that? I'm not sure where I've even said that. But what could be done to make you vote for Biden given that you believe he's a liar? It's in the quote, no idea who you think said it? To be fair, I've said I wouldn't be voting for Bernie either because of his (limited but too much for me) support of US imperialism. But a mea culpa, sincere apologies ( still hasn't given a satisfactory one directly to Anita Hill speaking of the SCOTUS aspect), is where he should have started. EDIT: When you say "you believe he's a liar" are you taking the position that his history of lying including during this campaign doesn't indicate he's a liar? Or are we both acknowledging the fact that lying ended a previous presidential campaign of his and he's lied multiple times during this one? I'm not 100% certain of anything in that post. My statement that people who have arrived at 100% certainty find it easier, not harder, to reject new information that would make their conclusion less valid in the digital age? I'm not 100% certain of that-it's mostly based on observations of online (especially conspiracy) and academic communities and their reactions to new information. But I think it's pretty likely. That this happened with Clinton? I'm also not 100% certain of that-I could imagine studies that would change my mind. That someone who has a 100% certain prior is acting irrationally? I guess that's kind of close to an axiom-but if I see a new non-Bayesian structure that allows for the improvements of prediction and probabilistic decision making (some extension of true symbolic logic to prediction) then I'd entertain it. My mind could change about all kinds of things. I can imagine information that would lead to situations where in November I vote for Biden, Trump, a write-in for Sanders, a third party candidate (even the Flying Spaghetti Monster). Some of those are much less likely than others. But, especially given their overall milquetoast nature, I am inclined to believe that the positions on Biden's website are probably more likely to happen with him in office than without (and even than with a random person in his stead)-I don't think there is hidden opposition deep in his soul to them. He lacks the soul for that, just as Clinton did. You can abandon the strawman of someone with 100% certainty then. I don't have 100% certainty that when I put my foot down it won't fall through the earth, but we have to operate in the world on some presumptions grounded in past and mutual experiences and analysis (which you acknowledge anyway). Supporting the racist, kid caging, liar that's probably a rapist because you think it's more likely some policies happen with him in power than not (regardless of his trustworthiness to bring them about) is the same calculus Republicans do when they support a racist, kid caging liar that's probably a rapist, is my point. To have a strawman you need to be arguing against someone's position! I quoted DPB for a reason because I wanted to point out that increasing access to information makes it easier to reason backwards from 100% certainty and less likely for people's minds to change. Do you not think that's the case? Do you think that did not happen with the Clinton candidacy? Do you think that will not happen in 2020 for both Biden and Trump and did not already happen in 2020 for Sanders? What frustrates me more than anything is that I am pretty sure you recognize all that. But where-ever that happening would currently serve your goals, you might try to take advantage of it.
People can read the chain if they care but DPB set it up with claiming to be triggered by people who say they don't know what Biden's platforms are and you setting them up as irrational actors based on a 100% certainty strawman position.
I was pointing out they probably don't mean it literally in that they haven't/can't read what someone wrote on his website. Rather that they are skeptical of his sincerity based on a history of documented lies and plagiarism that ended a previous campaign and has clearly entered this one (regarding the blatant lying in an effort to court voters with the Nelson Mandela, and civil rights pool thing as a couple examples).
My argument is that the issue isn't people irrationally in opposition to Biden (as it wasn't with Hillary), it is/was that Biden/Hillary supporters still can't see how them supporting (in Biden's case) a corrupt, racist, child caging, probable rapist, etc... is not "indistinguishable" in the sense that people don't know there are differences between Biden and Trump, but that they are both unacceptably bad.
|
On April 10 2020 01:18 farvacola wrote:
Lambasting someone's comparison as disingenuous while comparing voting in a primary to licking boxes at Gamestop is not very persuasive.
Neither is implying I think people are licking the polling booths while ignoring the rest of my post about how telling people that they're fine to go out if they don't show symptoms is dangerous misinformation. It totally sidesteps what is bad about what Biden said to make a condescending remark
The primary is not something that should have been done in person and needlessly put people at risk when there were safer alternatives that already exist (mail-in ballots)
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
