|
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 10 2020 01:24 TomatoBisque wrote:Show nested quote +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. 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)
That's totally true, but as already set forth by IyMoon, there's a huge gap between acknowledging that the holding of the primary was shameful and blaming Biden for sending people to their deaths by tweet.
|
On April 10 2020 01:24 TomatoBisque wrote:Show nested quote +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)
You keep calling it misinformation, but Biden didn’t say “asymptomatic people can’t spread the disease.” My work says if I’m not symptomatic, haven’t been exposed to anyone positive, and am not in an at-risk group, I should come in. That’s not spreading misinformation, it’s establishing guidelines to reduce risk. You might disagree with the guidelines (I do), but they’re not spreading lies.
|
On April 09 2020 22:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2020 22:17 mierin wrote:On April 09 2020 20:46 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:It's pathetic that after 3 years of having to endure a president that is belligerent towards hard questions, touches women inappropriately, is unfit for office and loses coherence after 3 sentences, that the candidate democrats choose to fight against him is: A man that is belligerent towards hard questions, touches women inappropriately, is unfit for office, but can do 6 sentences before losing coherence! After 3 years of getting fucked over by Mitch McConnell and watching the republican party turn into a personality cult, democrats put forward a guy who wants to reach across the aisle and maybe get a republican cabinet member. After declaring that it's never been more important for the country to defeat this current president, democrats bring forward a candidate who's best campaign strategy was to hope people didn't hear him speak too much and only see photo's of his good posture and American smile. After enduring a toxic presidency democrats pick a candidate that responds to question about his son by calling the person who asked fat, and challenging him to a pushup contest... Biden had nothing going for him except riding a wave of being nominated 'most electable' , which is a completely made up narrative based on nothing, yet everyone falls in line behind him. Gore, Kerry, and Hillary were also most electable and they all lost. And yes, Biden is still infinitely better than Trump on many areas, and everyone should vote for him for sure to stop the country from rolling into authoritarianism. But it's a really pathetic effort that's he's the one to have to hedge your bets on. I wholeheartedly agree with everything but the last paragraph. What happens in 2024, 2028, etc when the Democrats put forward an equally unpalatable candidate? "everyone should vote for him/her for sure"? The same logic can be applied against your argument though, mierin + Show Spoiler +also partially re-responding to: On April 09 2020 04:49 mierin wrote:
2024: "Vote for this moderate/right democratic candidate...think of the consequences if his Republican opponent is elected!!
2028: "Vote for this moderate/right democratic candidate...think of the consequences if his Republican opponent is elected!!"
...and so on.
Yeah, no. In 2016, Bernie-Or-Bust voters didn't support Hillary so the Republican option won; the BOB's mindset: surely next time we'll be listened to, and win the primary! In 2020, BOB voters aren't supporting Biden so the Republican option is likely to win; the BOB's mindset: surely next time we'll be listened to, and win the primary! In 2024 and 2028, as the world simultaneously catches fire and falls victim to global pandemics and everything else, the BOB voters will cling to "You should have listened to us" instead of actually unifying behind more popular candidates that could actually make some progress instead of the regressive Republican options. This attempt at having the moral high ground while the country is inevitably destroyed reeks of naivety and privilege, and ignores realism and pragmatism. The facts of the matter are that the progressive wing of the Democratic party (which I am proudly a part of) is still in the minority, and when some progressives help Republicans win, they are cutting off their nose to spite their face. If Biden wins in 2020, or another moderate Democrat wins in 2024 or 2028, despite the blatant sabotage of some progressive voters, that will clearly signal that the progressive wing is weaker, not stronger. And the primary has demonstrated that the establishment Democrats are in a far stronger position right before this election, than the progressive wing is, because the establishment Democrats outvoted us. So, rather than whining like babies after we've lost, and refusing to honor the primary at all, maybe we should spend every waking day promoting progressive policies and hoping to gradually change minds over the years - so that we have better and better chances to win the next primaries - and then still begrudgingly vote for the candidate who actually has a chance to move the needle in our direction. The only way we're going to ever win in the future is to have more people vote for our next progressive candidate, not to throw the general election over and over again just because the establishment candidate isn't perfect. As it is right now, why the heck should any moderate voter unify behind a future progressive nominee, if we're not willing to ever unify behind them?
A smaller % of Bernie voters voted for Trump in 2016 than Clinton voters voted for McCain in 2008. So, if we're going to play "pin the tail on the party traitor" recent behavior says the BOB crowd is overhyped and used to misplace blame for picking an all around awful candidate in regards to 2016. There is more inertia with the moderate voter than there is the left.
|
On April 10 2020 01:55 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2020 22:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On April 09 2020 22:17 mierin wrote:On April 09 2020 20:46 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:It's pathetic that after 3 years of having to endure a president that is belligerent towards hard questions, touches women inappropriately, is unfit for office and loses coherence after 3 sentences, that the candidate democrats choose to fight against him is: A man that is belligerent towards hard questions, touches women inappropriately, is unfit for office, but can do 6 sentences before losing coherence! After 3 years of getting fucked over by Mitch McConnell and watching the republican party turn into a personality cult, democrats put forward a guy who wants to reach across the aisle and maybe get a republican cabinet member. After declaring that it's never been more important for the country to defeat this current president, democrats bring forward a candidate who's best campaign strategy was to hope people didn't hear him speak too much and only see photo's of his good posture and American smile. After enduring a toxic presidency democrats pick a candidate that responds to question about his son by calling the person who asked fat, and challenging him to a pushup contest... Biden had nothing going for him except riding a wave of being nominated 'most electable' , which is a completely made up narrative based on nothing, yet everyone falls in line behind him. Gore, Kerry, and Hillary were also most electable and they all lost. And yes, Biden is still infinitely better than Trump on many areas, and everyone should vote for him for sure to stop the country from rolling into authoritarianism. But it's a really pathetic effort that's he's the one to have to hedge your bets on. I wholeheartedly agree with everything but the last paragraph. What happens in 2024, 2028, etc when the Democrats put forward an equally unpalatable candidate? "everyone should vote for him/her for sure"? The same logic can be applied against your argument though, mierin + Show Spoiler +also partially re-responding to: On April 09 2020 04:49 mierin wrote:
2024: "Vote for this moderate/right democratic candidate...think of the consequences if his Republican opponent is elected!!
2028: "Vote for this moderate/right democratic candidate...think of the consequences if his Republican opponent is elected!!"
...and so on.
Yeah, no. In 2016, Bernie-Or-Bust voters didn't support Hillary so the Republican option won; the BOB's mindset: surely next time we'll be listened to, and win the primary! In 2020, BOB voters aren't supporting Biden so the Republican option is likely to win; the BOB's mindset: surely next time we'll be listened to, and win the primary! In 2024 and 2028, as the world simultaneously catches fire and falls victim to global pandemics and everything else, the BOB voters will cling to "You should have listened to us" instead of actually unifying behind more popular candidates that could actually make some progress instead of the regressive Republican options. This attempt at having the moral high ground while the country is inevitably destroyed reeks of naivety and privilege, and ignores realism and pragmatism. The facts of the matter are that the progressive wing of the Democratic party (which I am proudly a part of) is still in the minority, and when some progressives help Republicans win, they are cutting off their nose to spite their face. If Biden wins in 2020, or another moderate Democrat wins in 2024 or 2028, despite the blatant sabotage of some progressive voters, that will clearly signal that the progressive wing is weaker, not stronger. And the primary has demonstrated that the establishment Democrats are in a far stronger position right before this election, than the progressive wing is, because the establishment Democrats outvoted us. So, rather than whining like babies after we've lost, and refusing to honor the primary at all, maybe we should spend every waking day promoting progressive policies and hoping to gradually change minds over the years - so that we have better and better chances to win the next primaries - and then still begrudgingly vote for the candidate who actually has a chance to move the needle in our direction. The only way we're going to ever win in the future is to have more people vote for our next progressive candidate, not to throw the general election over and over again just because the establishment candidate isn't perfect. As it is right now, why the heck should any moderate voter unify behind a future progressive nominee, if we're not willing to ever unify behind them? A smaller % of Bernie voters voted for Trump in 2016 than Clinton voters voted for McCain in 2008. So, if we're going to play "pin the tail on the party traitor" recent behavior says the BOB crowd is overhyped and used to misplace blame for picking an all around awful candidate in regards to 2016. There is more inertia with the moderate voter than there is the left.
I'm happy pinning the tail on any small group that helps sabotage the election, including Clinton supporters who voted for McCain over Obama, as well as as other Democrats/ liberals/ progressives who choose not to vote for the Democratic nominee only because the chosen nominee wasn't their perfect candidate.
|
Northern Ireland25984 Posts
On April 10 2020 01:21 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2020 01:03 TheTenthDoc wrote: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:
[quote]
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.
It was me who said that, probably should post more during sober hours. Was about a third of what I was going to post.
It depends on the issue and indeed who you are and how much you care about. Hypothetical simplified person (HSP) cares about x y and z and only these issues. Reduced to a binary of doing something or not doing something, if Biden and Trump are both 000 or 111 or whatever combination then they are functionally identical to HSP.
Taken to a more cynical conclusion I think it’s (sadly) unrealistic to expect people to vote for other people’s interests or values if their own aren’t being met, continually.
Anyway I am reading some of Biden’s website more thoroughly now, yeah there’s stuff I like there that’s either outright decent or at least a decent halfway house measure. But hell even Trump’s manifesto had some stuff I liked.
For looking at Trump’s psyche and public actions on the campaign overwhelming even the decent parts and thinking god please don’t make this man President, Biden has a big Obama problem.
For all that it benefits him that glory of association, I think it makes me justly skeptical. Especially given Obama’s ascent was the first real big touchstone moment politically and it came just as I transitioned to adulthood so I remember it extremely well.
A lot of that hope and change wasn’t delivered and he was ostensible second in command for 8 years. Some of it explicable by Republican intransigence sure, but Guantanamo still being open was a lack of follow through and will from that administration.
That aside I’d still place him a large distance ahead of Trump all that being said.
|
|
|
On April 10 2020 02:17 Wombat_NI wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2020 01:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2020 01:03 TheTenthDoc wrote: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:
[quote]
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. It was me who said that, probably should post more during sober hours. Was about a third of what I was going to post. It depends on the issue and indeed who you are and how much you care about. Hypothetical simplified person (HSP) cares about x y and z and only these issues. Reduced to a binary of doing something or not doing something, if Biden and Trump are both 000 or 111 or whatever combination then they are functionally identical to HSP. + Show Spoiler +Taken to a more cynical conclusion I think it’s (sadly) unrealistic to expect people to vote for other people’s interests or values if their own aren’t being met, continually.
Anyway I am reading some of Biden’s website more thoroughly now, yeah there’s stuff I like there that’s either outright decent or at least a decent halfway house measure. But hell even Trump’s manifesto had some stuff I liked.
For looking at Trump’s psyche and public actions on the campaign overwhelming even the decent parts and thinking god please don’t make this man President, Biden has a big Obama problem.
For all that it benefits him that glory of association, I think it makes me justly skeptical. Especially given Obama’s ascent was the first real big touchstone moment politically and it came just as I transitioned to adulthood so I remember it extremely well.
A lot of that hope and change wasn’t delivered and he was ostensible second in command for 8 years. Some of it explicable by Republican intransigence sure, but Guantanamo still being open was a lack of follow through and will from that administration. That aside I’d still place him a large distance ahead of Trump all that being said.
If we imagine Kissinger/Nixon/Bush/choose your villain, Trump, Biden, and Bernie on a list of worst to least bad there's a some important things happening in the political discourse.
I (and many others) think the order is fine as listed there and draw a line of unacceptability between Bernie and the rest.
Refusing that line of unacceptability or sliding it depending on who occupies the Trump-Nixon-Kissinger position is one point of contention. Another is whether Trump's demeanor is worse than the other's war crimes/corruption/etc warranting him topping the list.
imo Trump being worse is like saying a moldy shit sandwich is worse than a hot and steamy one. The argument isn't about which is worse (and people forcing it to be that are acting against their own interests imo) it's between people refusing the poop sandwich and the people calling them irrational/petty/etc because we're all going to eat poop sandwiches with their full-throated support, so we better pick the fresh one that slides down the throat easier and might have more nutritional value.
Just to cap that off, Trump supporters see the moldy sandwich and speculate that it might be penicillin and actually make them stronger and resistant to fecal-borne disease. The people painted by Democrats as irrational uninformed people acting against their interest are the ones refusing to eat or force anyone else to a poop sandwich, particularly if it's only so the people feeding it to us can profit from selling it to us as sustenance.
Gaslighting doesn't even begin to describe the kinda fuckery happening there imo.
|
On April 10 2020 02:45 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2020 02:17 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 10 2020 01:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2020 01:03 TheTenthDoc wrote: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:
[quote]
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. It was me who said that, probably should post more during sober hours. Was about a third of what I was going to post. It depends on the issue and indeed who you are and how much you care about. Hypothetical simplified person (HSP) cares about x y and z and only these issues. Reduced to a binary of doing something or not doing something, if Biden and Trump are both 000 or 111 or whatever combination then they are functionally identical to HSP. + Show Spoiler +Taken to a more cynical conclusion I think it’s (sadly) unrealistic to expect people to vote for other people’s interests or values if their own aren’t being met, continually.
Anyway I am reading some of Biden’s website more thoroughly now, yeah there’s stuff I like there that’s either outright decent or at least a decent halfway house measure. But hell even Trump’s manifesto had some stuff I liked.
For looking at Trump’s psyche and public actions on the campaign overwhelming even the decent parts and thinking god please don’t make this man President, Biden has a big Obama problem.
For all that it benefits him that glory of association, I think it makes me justly skeptical. Especially given Obama’s ascent was the first real big touchstone moment politically and it came just as I transitioned to adulthood so I remember it extremely well.
A lot of that hope and change wasn’t delivered and he was ostensible second in command for 8 years. Some of it explicable by Republican intransigence sure, but Guantanamo still being open was a lack of follow through and will from that administration. That aside I’d still place him a large distance ahead of Trump all that being said. If we imagine Kissinger/Nixon/Bush/choose your villain, Trump, Biden, and Bernie on a list of worst to least bad there's a some important things happening in the political discourse. I (and many others) think the order is fine as listed there and draw a line of unacceptability between Bernie and the rest. Refusing that line of unacceptability or sliding it depending on who occupies the Trump-Nixon-Kissinger position is one point of contention. Another is whether Trump's demeanor is worse than the other's war crimes/corruption/etc warranting him topping the list. imo Trump being worse is like saying a moldy shit sandwich is worse than a hot and steamy one. The argument isn't about which is worse ( and people forcing it to be that are acting against their own interests imo) it's between people refusing the poop sandwich and the people calling them irrational/petty/etc because we're all going to eat poop sandwiches with their full-throated support, so we better pick the fresh one that slides down the throat easier and might have more nutritional value. Just to cap that off, Trump supporters see the moldy sandwich and speculate that it might be penicillin and actually make them stronger and resistant to fecal-borne disease. The people painted by Democrats as irrational uninformed people acting against their interest are the ones refusing to eat or force anyone else to a poop sandwich, particularly if it's only so the people feeding it to us can profit from selling it to us as sustenance. Gaslighting doesn't even begin to describe the kinda fuckery happening there imo.
The bold part betrays the flaw in your entire world view here.
We are at the point of our general election. At this point, people aren't trying to force you to choose the better of two evils. The system is. We had a chance to choose the best option and we lost. This is why your side sounds petty. You already had a chance to implement your ideal candidate and ideas and you failed. You are now at the point where you only have two options for president. Not helping the rest of the country to avoid the shittier option makes you morally culpable, no matter how much you lie to yourself.
If you want to make it so we don't have this shitty system (which pretty much everyone here does), then you need to continue to push for systemic change. But that systemic change doesn't come from whining like a child, taking your ball, and going home when you're at the point of no return on this year's presidential election. One of these two men will be president (barring something extraordinary and outside of the legal/nominating process). Not contributing to the best possible outcome in the current scenario is cowardice.
|
I don’t really think the shit-eating metaphors have gotten any more illuminating over the last four years. Is there a reason that framing is any more helpful than the traditional trolley problem?
|
Relying on an elaborate over-metaphor that dodges the specific terms of the dilemma presented is a good way to avoid answering the question while sneaking a different one beneath the surface.
The trolley problem has unique meme qualities because it can be referenced and shown in very simple terms that communicate a discrete objectified message that asks one very plain moral question (albeit a very controversial one). Shit eating and other vulgar metaphors for engaging in politics turn on some measure of subjectivity, far more than the trolley problem at least. Thus, they can serve as an inside joke among those who see eye to eye while frustrate those trying to come to common terms.
|
On April 10 2020 03:15 Stratos_speAr wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2020 02:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2020 02:17 Wombat_NI wrote:On April 10 2020 01:21 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2020 01:03 TheTenthDoc wrote: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:
[quote]
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).
[quote]
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. It was me who said that, probably should post more during sober hours. Was about a third of what I was going to post. It depends on the issue and indeed who you are and how much you care about. Hypothetical simplified person (HSP) cares about x y and z and only these issues. Reduced to a binary of doing something or not doing something, if Biden and Trump are both 000 or 111 or whatever combination then they are functionally identical to HSP. + Show Spoiler +Taken to a more cynical conclusion I think it’s (sadly) unrealistic to expect people to vote for other people’s interests or values if their own aren’t being met, continually.
Anyway I am reading some of Biden’s website more thoroughly now, yeah there’s stuff I like there that’s either outright decent or at least a decent halfway house measure. But hell even Trump’s manifesto had some stuff I liked.
For looking at Trump’s psyche and public actions on the campaign overwhelming even the decent parts and thinking god please don’t make this man President, Biden has a big Obama problem.
For all that it benefits him that glory of association, I think it makes me justly skeptical. Especially given Obama’s ascent was the first real big touchstone moment politically and it came just as I transitioned to adulthood so I remember it extremely well.
A lot of that hope and change wasn’t delivered and he was ostensible second in command for 8 years. Some of it explicable by Republican intransigence sure, but Guantanamo still being open was a lack of follow through and will from that administration. That aside I’d still place him a large distance ahead of Trump all that being said. If we imagine Kissinger/Nixon/Bush/choose your villain, Trump, Biden, and Bernie on a list of worst to least bad there's a some important things happening in the political discourse. I (and many others) think the order is fine as listed there and draw a line of unacceptability between Bernie and the rest. Refusing that line of unacceptability or sliding it depending on who occupies the Trump-Nixon-Kissinger position is one point of contention. Another is whether Trump's demeanor is worse than the other's war crimes/corruption/etc warranting him topping the list. imo Trump being worse is like saying a moldy shit sandwich is worse than a hot and steamy one. The argument isn't about which is worse ( and people forcing it to be that are acting against their own interests imo) it's between people refusing the poop sandwich and the people calling them irrational/petty/etc because we're all going to eat poop sandwiches with their full-throated support, so we better pick the fresh one that slides down the throat easier and might have more nutritional value. Just to cap that off, Trump supporters see the moldy sandwich and speculate that it might be penicillin and actually make them stronger and resistant to fecal-borne disease. The people painted by Democrats as irrational uninformed people acting against their interest are the ones refusing to eat or force anyone else to a poop sandwich, particularly if it's only so the people feeding it to us can profit from selling it to us as sustenance. Gaslighting doesn't even begin to describe the kinda fuckery happening there imo. The bold part betrays the flaw in your entire world view here. We are at the point of our general election. At this point, people aren't trying to force you to choose the better of two evils. The system is. We had a chance to choose the best option and we lost. This is why your side sounds petty. You already had a chance to implement your ideal candidate and ideas and you failed. You are now at the point where you only have two options for president. Not helping the rest of the country to avoid the shittier option makes you morally culpable, no matter how much you lie to yourself. If you want to make it so we don't have this shitty system (which pretty much everyone here does), then you need to continue to push for systemic change. But that systemic change doesn't come from whining like a child, taking your ball, and going home when you're at the point of no return on this year's presidential election. One of these two men will be president (barring something extraordinary and outside of the legal/nominating process). Not contributing to the best possible outcome in the current scenario is cowardice.
You are pretending it doesn't come with a critique of "the system" as a product of those people (who insist on absolving themselves of responsibility for the choice they insist must be made). Instead replacing it with "whining like a child" and "taking your ball, and going home" to describe a rejection of a system that has been demonstrated to be historically and perpetually exploitative of marginalized peoples at home, and devastatingly cruel to peoples around the world.
Your/Democrats insistence on perpetuating that is indistinguishable from Republican's insistence on perpetuating it even if Democrats want to make that system more nominally representative of the population.
|
On April 10 2020 03:17 ChristianS wrote:
I don’t really think the shit-eating metaphors have gotten any more illuminating over the last four years. Is there a reason that framing is any more helpful than the traditional trolley problem?
The problem is the trolly and people tied to the tracks don't manifest spontaneously from thin air.
|
On April 10 2020 03:24 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2020 03:17 ChristianS wrote:
I don’t really think the shit-eating metaphors have gotten any more illuminating over the last four years. Is there a reason that framing is any more helpful than the traditional trolley problem? The problem is the trolly and people tied to the tracks don't manifest spontaneously from thin air.
Doesn't matter, the trolley is moving on the track and you're at the switch lever now.
|
Leftists are the only people in politics that have agency in people's arguments.
|
On April 10 2020 02:24 JimmiC wrote:
Considering Bernie must have already considered dropping out because he did it shortly after it would be much easier and more logical to blame him. Does sending a “we should delay it” tweet compared to stopping it which he clearly could have, some how not worse then the tweet Biden sent out, when he had no realistic way of stopping it?
The reason people here and within echo chambers are blaming Biden and not Bernie is because they have decided Bernie is good and Biden is bad and they are working backwards to prove this out. If you look at this event with just logic you will see it was the reps that kept it from being delayed despite dem (late) effort to stop it. And at that point the only one person could have reasonably stopped it was Bernie. A tweet asking for a delay would have done nothing from Biden. And the Biden blame people would have found a different reason to blame them.
Reality is everyone who does not think it should have happened should be most upset at those who had the most ability to stop it, not the guy who didn’t send a ineffective tweet that wouldn’t have done anything.
That the left is fighting with each other over what tweet Biden should have sent is really a bad sign. Another 4 years of trump is incredibly bad news for the environment, really bad news for the courts, and really bad news for any government department that requires competent leadership.
Twitter and social media is a terrible place to get your news because it creates a echo chamber where you can be influenced. And foreign governments are doing this on purpose and it is working.
There are things to be mad at Biden for, this is not one. From what I have read news outlets are researching on the sexual assault accusation, so more should be on that and if as much comes out that did on Kavanaugh I would hope he would be replaced.
But being mad that he didn’t send what you think is the right tweet that would have had no effect on what happened is pointless and it makes people start to not believe the reasonable criticism because they write it off as more biased info.
Sanders turned his campaign into a charity drive for the last few months (raising at least 4 million, but probably a lot more) and in all likely hood decided to finally drop out because it became clear the DNC/Biden camp wasn't going to push for delayed primaries. So there's some precedence here.
Also this isn't about WI exclusively. Biden did it twice (WI and the Florida/Michigan/etc. primary day). You can't just blame WI Republicans for how Biden has approached the Coronavirus affecting the primary.
If you are trying to tell me the presumptive democratic primary candidate has no power within his party or the country to delay a primary then what the hell is anyone doing? Why would you ever vote for someone who can't even get the most basic precaution in place to protect people? Even if it's the Republicans fault Biden can still influence his party and his voters. Tell them to stay home, tell them it's not worth showing up to a polling place to vote, he can win the nomination in the next state when its safer. Tell them anything except it's ok to vote.
Why do I even care at all what blame Bernie should bear, he's not a presidential candidate anymore. I have no interest in his ability to govern because he's not trying to govern me.
All that matters is Biden lied about how safe it was to vote because he wanted to lock up the nomination.
|
On April 10 2020 03:28 Gahlo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2020 03:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2020 03:17 ChristianS wrote:
I don’t really think the shit-eating metaphors have gotten any more illuminating over the last four years. Is there a reason that framing is any more helpful than the traditional trolley problem? The problem is the trolly and people tied to the tracks don't manifest spontaneously from thin air. Doesn't matter, the trolley is moving on the track and you're at the switch lever now.
Then we should derail the trolly and stop tying people to the tracks instead of ambling to the next switch
|
On April 10 2020 03:33 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2020 03:28 Gahlo wrote:On April 10 2020 03:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2020 03:17 ChristianS wrote:
I don’t really think the shit-eating metaphors have gotten any more illuminating over the last four years. Is there a reason that framing is any more helpful than the traditional trolley problem? The problem is the trolly and people tied to the tracks don't manifest spontaneously from thin air. Doesn't matter, the trolley is moving on the track and you're at the switch lever now. Then we should derail the trolly and stop tying people to the tracks instead of ambling to the next switch
Lets push the trolley along for another 40 years and make our grandkids pay the cost.
"The Left" has been fighting these fights for 40+ years and every time told to wait (Reagan is bad, Nixon is bad, Bush is bad...). All that voting for the lesser of two evils has done is pushed the work and hardship from one generation to the next while the body count rises and rises.
|
On April 10 2020 03:33 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2020 03:28 Gahlo wrote:On April 10 2020 03:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2020 03:17 ChristianS wrote:
I don’t really think the shit-eating metaphors have gotten any more illuminating over the last four years. Is there a reason that framing is any more helpful than the traditional trolley problem? The problem is the trolly and people tied to the tracks don't manifest spontaneously from thin air. Doesn't matter, the trolley is moving on the track and you're at the switch lever now. Then we should derail the trolly and stop tying people to the tracks instead of ambling to the next switch
As soon as you speak of a third option, like derailing the trolley, the analogy no longer holds. The general election is an actual dichotomy. You don't get a third, hidden choice in this election. Either Trump or Biden will win, even if we don't want either of them.
|
|
|
On April 10 2020 03:33 GreenHorizons wrote:
Then we should derail the trolly and stop tying people to the tracks instead of ambling to the next switch
I'm not seeing how choosing not to operate the switch serves to derail the trolley.
This is sort of where the disconnect is happening for me (and presumably others). It's unclear how choosing to not vote helps you to enact your stated goals in the long term any more than voting for the lesser of two evils does. What guarantees that letting the other side win over and over again leads to an outcome where the system falls apart and you get to rebuild it from the ground up? What reasoning is there for this as the best way to accomplish your stated goals?
It seems based purely on faith that if you let things continue to be shit for long enough, people will get sufficiently fed up with it to overcome their inertia, but I don't see where the basis for that faith lies. People have an astounding propensity to let shitty things continue to be shit and not do anything.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
