|
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 03:37 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2020 03:33 GreenHorizons wrote: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.
That's because the analogy is bad and attempts to absolve society of /ignore its responsibility for building the trolly and tracks, speeding it out of control, and tying people to the tracks to be ran over. It instead tries to move the voter/decision maker from one switch to the next and each party tries to throw as many people on the tracks as they can to make their side the right choice.
The whole point is to remove you and I from the decisions of what kind of trolly we build, where we put the tracks, and how fast it travels and instead limit us (and encourage you, Democrats and Republicans to enforce this limitation) to choosing who the trolly runs over.
On April 10 2020 03:43 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +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 less shitty candidate 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?
"not voting" isn't and hasn't been presented as the alternative by myself or people I'm aware of as the "derailing' option. The mass direct action is the derailing and the people not contributing to it are the ones pushing the trolly toward the switch fmp.
|
|
|
On April 10 2020 03:41 JimmiC wrote:
There has been about 3 people explain that Biden didn't lie, so no point me going over it again, it just goes to furthering the point that you are starting with an answer and looking for excuses for it to be true.
I'm not starting with an answer, I can read statements myself and see that it's a lie. The arguments here aren't actual arguments.
The arguments were:
"It's as much risk as going to the grocery store"
- You should avoid the grocery store as much as you can, and ideally people would only be visiting the grocery store once or twice a month if they're able to. Saying it's as much risk as going to the grocery store is exactly the point, it's that much risk and taking on that risk is bad.
"My work told me the same thing"
- Your work is exploiting you and risking your health, or at least deems the risk necessary for some greater purpose.
Those aren't actual arguments, they're just trying to hand wave away the risk you were asked to bear.
|
On April 10 2020 03:49 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2020 03:41 JimmiC wrote:
There has been about 3 people explain that Biden didn't lie, so no point me going over it again, it just goes to furthering the point that you are starting with an answer and looking for excuses for it to be true. I'm not starting with an answer, I can read statements myself and see that it's a lie. The arguments here aren't actual arguments. The arguments were: "It's as much risk as going to the grocery store" - You should avoid the grocery store as much as you can, and ideally people would only be visiting the grocery store once or twice a month if they're able to. Saying it's as much risk as going to the grocery store is exactly the point, it's that much risk and taking on that risk is bad. "My work told me the same thing" - Your work is exploiting you and risking your health, or at least deems the risk necessary for some greater purpose. Those aren't actual arguments, they're just trying to hand wave away the risk you were asked to bear.
Why do you use quotation marks if it’s not what I actually said?
|
On April 10 2020 03:44 GreenHorizons wrote:
"not voting" isn't and hasn't been presented as the alternative by myself or people I'm aware of as the "derailing' option. The mass direct action is the derailing and the people not contributing to it are the ones pushing the trolly toward the switch fmp.
So what stops you from both voting for the less shitty option AND contributing to mass direct action? How are these an either-or here?
I'm unclear on how "fight to change the system while not participating in the system" is better than "fight to change the system while acting within the system to get the less shitty option so that you're less fucked when you make no progress because people continue to do nothing to help you", other than being able to retain a snide sense of moral superiority. Otherwise, working both sides seems like the pragmatic thing to do.
|
On April 10 2020 03:48 JimmiC wrote:
People last time said things about not voting for Hilary would show the left they needed Bernie. It didn't work, you got 4 years of this, 40 years of a more conservative SCJ all the lower court appointees, backed out of the Paris accord and a bunch of other losses for the environment and so on.
The problem was people voted for Hillary. There was no reason for 2020 dems to feel any more threatened by leftist defection in 2020 than previously.
All of them were fairly bad and you country would be much more left if the Dems had won each time. Your post seems to point to voting Dem not the opposite.
Glad you agree that the Dems have been making the same mistake all this time and the problem is that by the left voting dem anyways in the general they've allowed the mistake to be dismissed and papered over.
|
On April 10 2020 03:51 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2020 03:49 Logo wrote:On April 10 2020 03:41 JimmiC wrote:
There has been about 3 people explain that Biden didn't lie, so no point me going over it again, it just goes to furthering the point that you are starting with an answer and looking for excuses for it to be true. I'm not starting with an answer, I can read statements myself and see that it's a lie. The arguments here aren't actual arguments. The arguments were: "It's as much risk as going to the grocery store" - You should avoid the grocery store as much as you can, and ideally people would only be visiting the grocery store once or twice a month if they're able to. Saying it's as much risk as going to the grocery store is exactly the point, it's that much risk and taking on that risk is bad. "My work told me the same thing" - Your work is exploiting you and risking your health, or at least deems the risk necessary for some greater purpose. Those aren't actual arguments, they're just trying to hand wave away the risk you were asked to bear. Why do you use quotation marks if it’s not what I actually said?
We really should have a symbol for paraphrased quotes, cause maaaan.
On April 10 2020 03:51 TheYango wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2020 03:44 GreenHorizons wrote:
"not voting" isn't and hasn't been presented as the alternative by myself or people I'm aware of as the "derailing' option. The mass direct action is the derailing and the people not contributing to it are the ones pushing the trolly toward the switch fmp. So what stops you from both voting for the less shitty option AND contributing to mass direct action? How are these an either-or here? I'm unclear on how "fight to change the system while not participating in the system" is better than "fight to change the system while acting within the system to get the less shitty option so that you're less fucked when you make no progress because people continue to do nothing to help you", other than being able to retain a snide sense of moral superiority.
My vote doesn't matter.
The question you're asking is a fundamental one about striking/mass organizing that Democrats used to be on my side of.
|
On April 10 2020 03:55 GreenHorizons wrote:
My vote doesn't matter.
The question you're asking is a fundamental one about striking/mass organizing that Democrats used to be on my side of.
Fair enough, mine doesn't either.
|
On April 09 2020 20:20 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2020 17:03 Nyxisto wrote:just saw this meme circulating on the internet, and I think that's quite an important issue nobody here has addressed yet. All other issues aside the border and immigration is something that the American president has quite a lot of influence over. Not really sure how the rights of millions of immigrants are negligible. But really it's only one issue on a long list of completely vital issues that Biden and Trump have nothing in common over. Can you trust Joe Biden here? In the 90s he towed the Democratic line of being tough on immigration and made some important votes to restrict immigration. Then he was part of the Obama administration which was one of the toughest administrations on immigrants, even if it was then surpassed by Trump. False equivalency is also a strawman, not voting for Biden isn't because he's the same as Trump, it's because he returns us to the exact conditions that let Trump win in the first place. Except now you have a whole host of smarter and more extreme people who will use the same playbook with a much more frightening result. For all the rhetoric that Joe's team puts on his website you can't ignore the things that Joe Biden actually says. Always remember, "Nothing will fundamentally change"
You can turn that game around and ask why should anyone else trust Sanders? Dude was going on about open borders being a Koch brothers proposal and was pretty much entirely reliant on a white disenfranchised Trump middle class in swing states to win. He sounded like him at times when he talked about Mexican workers.
Obviously I think a reasonable position here is that you now can trust either one, because the base is so clearly in favour of open immigration politics that the personality doesn't much matter. Neither Biden or Sanders would be like Trump on immigration, even remotely, and so if you're in favour of protecting immigrants you need to vote for the Democratic candidate. This is pretty much true on all issues. Compared to Trump there is barely any difference.
The Democratic candidates are all on the same page on about 85% of issues and if one takes into account the realities of the American political system the policies any of them would produce wouldn't be meaningfully different.
|
On April 10 2020 03:55 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2020 03:51 ChristianS wrote:On April 10 2020 03:49 Logo wrote:On April 10 2020 03:41 JimmiC wrote:
There has been about 3 people explain that Biden didn't lie, so no point me going over it again, it just goes to furthering the point that you are starting with an answer and looking for excuses for it to be true. I'm not starting with an answer, I can read statements myself and see that it's a lie. The arguments here aren't actual arguments. The arguments were: "It's as much risk as going to the grocery store" - You should avoid the grocery store as much as you can, and ideally people would only be visiting the grocery store once or twice a month if they're able to. Saying it's as much risk as going to the grocery store is exactly the point, it's that much risk and taking on that risk is bad. "My work told me the same thing" - Your work is exploiting you and risking your health, or at least deems the risk necessary for some greater purpose. Those aren't actual arguments, they're just trying to hand wave away the risk you were asked to bear. Why do you use quotation marks if it’s not what I actually said? We really should have a symbol for paraphrased quotes, cause maaaan.
if you have the quote block it shouldn't be that confusing that " " is paraphrased quotes.
|
On April 10 2020 03:56 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 09 2020 20:20 Logo wrote:On April 09 2020 17:03 Nyxisto wrote:just saw this meme circulating on the internet, and I think that's quite an important issue nobody here has addressed yet. All other issues aside the border and immigration is something that the American president has quite a lot of influence over. Not really sure how the rights of millions of immigrants are negligible. But really it's only one issue on a long list of completely vital issues that Biden and Trump have nothing in common over. Can you trust Joe Biden here? In the 90s he towed the Democratic line of being tough on immigration and made some important votes to restrict immigration. Then he was part of the Obama administration which was one of the toughest administrations on immigrants, even if it was then surpassed by Trump. False equivalency is also a strawman, not voting for Biden isn't because he's the same as Trump, it's because he returns us to the exact conditions that let Trump win in the first place. Except now you have a whole host of smarter and more extreme people who will use the same playbook with a much more frightening result. For all the rhetoric that Joe's team puts on his website you can't ignore the things that Joe Biden actually says. Always remember, "Nothing will fundamentally change" You can turn that game around and ask why should anyone else trust Sanders? Dude was going on about open borders being a Koch brothers proposal and was pretty much entirely reliant on a white disenfranchised Trump middle class in swing states to win. He sounded like him at times when he talked about Mexican workers. Obviously I think the reasonable position here is that you now can trust either one, because the base is so clearly in favour of open immigration politics that the personality doesn't much matter. Neither Biden or Sanders would be like Trump on immigration, even remotely, and so if you're in favour of protecting immigrants you need to vote for the Democratic candidate. This is pretty much true on all issues. Compared to Trump there is barely any difference.
That's just not true. If you favor protecting immigrants neither candidate is acceptable. If you want the horrific treatment of immigrant children to go back to being unavoidable collateral damage (like when Obama was doing it) then you vote Democrat.
|
On April 10 2020 03:31 Nebuchad wrote:
Leftists are the only people in politics that have agency in people's arguments.
Let's try it this way. It's a common strategy of liberals to be very progressive in primaries and then switch to centrist in the general to appeal to the general electorate. You know what I'm talking about, right? Gillum did it recently, so did Clinton, it's just about accepted political strategy.
Liberals do that because they're trying to earn more people's votes by appealing to the people they want the votes from. That seems to make sense, if you want something electorally, you act in a way that makes it more likely for you to get it. The people who disagree with that happening then get lectured about how that's the adult thing to do because politics is about making concessions.
Now it's important to realize that we don't have to do all that active stuff, instead we could take those centrist people who consider not voting for the liberal in the general and we could talk to them about trolleys. Here is a trolley, there are two tracks, if you pick my candidate you are morally good, if you don't you are morally reprehensible.
|
On April 10 2020 03:59 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2020 03:56 Nyxisto wrote:On April 09 2020 20:20 Logo wrote:On April 09 2020 17:03 Nyxisto wrote:just saw this meme circulating on the internet, and I think that's quite an important issue nobody here has addressed yet. All other issues aside the border and immigration is something that the American president has quite a lot of influence over. Not really sure how the rights of millions of immigrants are negligible. But really it's only one issue on a long list of completely vital issues that Biden and Trump have nothing in common over. Can you trust Joe Biden here? In the 90s he towed the Democratic line of being tough on immigration and made some important votes to restrict immigration. Then he was part of the Obama administration which was one of the toughest administrations on immigrants, even if it was then surpassed by Trump. False equivalency is also a strawman, not voting for Biden isn't because he's the same as Trump, it's because he returns us to the exact conditions that let Trump win in the first place. Except now you have a whole host of smarter and more extreme people who will use the same playbook with a much more frightening result. For all the rhetoric that Joe's team puts on his website you can't ignore the things that Joe Biden actually says. Always remember, "Nothing will fundamentally change" You can turn that game around and ask why should anyone else trust Sanders? Dude was going on about open borders being a Koch brothers proposal and was pretty much entirely reliant on a white disenfranchised Trump middle class in swing states to win. He sounded like him at times when he talked about Mexican workers. Obviously I think the reasonable position here is that you now can trust either one, because the base is so clearly in favour of open immigration politics that the personality doesn't much matter. Neither Biden or Sanders would be like Trump on immigration, even remotely, and so if you're in favour of protecting immigrants you need to vote for the Democratic candidate. This is pretty much true on all issues. Compared to Trump there is barely any difference. That's just not true. If you favor protecting immigrants neither candidate is acceptable. If you want the horrific treatment of immigrant children to go back to being unavoidable collateral damage (like when Obama was doing it) then you vote Democrat.
Ask the immigrants with uncertain immigration status if they share that opinion. Or even better ask Bernie Sanders himself if there's no difference between Biden or Trump on immigration. That is just nuts, Willing to risk the well-being of millions of people just because of some fantasy revolution that ain't happening is malicious.
|
On April 10 2020 03:57 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2020 03:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2020 03:51 ChristianS wrote:On April 10 2020 03:49 Logo wrote:On April 10 2020 03:41 JimmiC wrote:
There has been about 3 people explain that Biden didn't lie, so no point me going over it again, it just goes to furthering the point that you are starting with an answer and looking for excuses for it to be true. I'm not starting with an answer, I can read statements myself and see that it's a lie. The arguments here aren't actual arguments. The arguments were: "It's as much risk as going to the grocery store" - You should avoid the grocery store as much as you can, and ideally people would only be visiting the grocery store once or twice a month if they're able to. Saying it's as much risk as going to the grocery store is exactly the point, it's that much risk and taking on that risk is bad. "My work told me the same thing" - Your work is exploiting you and risking your health, or at least deems the risk necessary for some greater purpose. Those aren't actual arguments, they're just trying to hand wave away the risk you were asked to bear. Why do you use quotation marks if it’s not what I actually said? We really should have a symbol for paraphrased quotes, cause maaaan. if you have the it shouldn't be that confusing that " " is paraphrased quotes.
But it’s not an accurate paraphrase either?
|
On April 10 2020 03:22 farvacola wrote:
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 subjectivity. Thus, they can serve as an inside joke among those who see eye to eye while frustrate those trying to come to common terms.
Yeah, it seems like mainly an opportunity to smuggle associations in without addressing them directly. If I picture a bunch of tough guys standing around menacingly while their leader with, like, a scar or a goofy mustache or some shit cackles about his evil plan to force me to choose between eating (as the metaphor is traditionally presented) a tofu sandwich and a shit sandwich, my main frame of reference for that situation is action movies. In which case I have several immediate intuitions:
-No matter what I choose, he’s still gonna make me do the worse one.
-However insurmountable they may seem, I can still say a cool line and then triumph over all of them.
-If I do play his game there will be some “trick” where the tofu sandwich has the detonator button to my daughter’s explosive vest or some bullshit.
Analogies to action movies are a poor basis for political decision-making. I’m 99.9% sure that someone will be president come January 2021, and 99.8% sure that someone will be either Biden or Trump. If I’m right, then it really is a trolley problem, and creative solutions like “half-pull the lever to derail the trolley” or “pull the handbrake, dummy” don’t exist. I have the option to not pull the lever so I don’t feel like I have blood on my hands, but I will have relinquished my ability to choose a less-bad option for what is essentially my pride.
|
On April 10 2020 03:55 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2020 03:51 ChristianS wrote:On April 10 2020 03:49 Logo wrote:On April 10 2020 03:41 JimmiC wrote:
There has been about 3 people explain that Biden didn't lie, so no point me going over it again, it just goes to furthering the point that you are starting with an answer and looking for excuses for it to be true. I'm not starting with an answer, I can read statements myself and see that it's a lie. The arguments here aren't actual arguments. The arguments were: "It's as much risk as going to the grocery store" - You should avoid the grocery store as much as you can, and ideally people would only be visiting the grocery store once or twice a month if they're able to. Saying it's as much risk as going to the grocery store is exactly the point, it's that much risk and taking on that risk is bad. "My work told me the same thing" - Your work is exploiting you and risking your health, or at least deems the risk necessary for some greater purpose. Those aren't actual arguments, they're just trying to hand wave away the risk you were asked to bear. Why do you use quotation marks if it’s not what I actually said? We really should have a symbol for paraphrased quotes, cause maaaan. Show nested quote +On April 10 2020 03:51 TheYango wrote:On April 10 2020 03:44 GreenHorizons wrote:
"not voting" isn't and hasn't been presented as the alternative by myself or people I'm aware of as the "derailing' option. The mass direct action is the derailing and the people not contributing to it are the ones pushing the trolly toward the switch fmp. So what stops you from both voting for the less shitty option AND contributing to mass direct action? How are these an either-or here? I'm unclear on how "fight to change the system while not participating in the system" is better than "fight to change the system while acting within the system to get the less shitty option so that you're less fucked when you make no progress because people continue to do nothing to help you", other than being able to retain a snide sense of moral superiority. My vote doesn't matter. The question you're asking is a fundamental one about striking/mass organizing that Democrats used to be on my side of.
Plenty of Democrats are on "your side" in that regard.
The problem is that you and others continue to argue against voting for Biden (regardless of any future "that's not what I said" bullshit coming from you), when TheYango laid it out perfectly; how is that morally acceptable when compared to "fight to change the system but also work within the system to obtain the best current outcome"?
That question undermines everything about your argument, and until you can answer it clearly and in good faith, nothing else you say holds any weight.
Glad you agree that the Dems have been making the same mistake all this time and the problem is that by the left voting dem anyways in the general they've allowed the mistake to be dismissed and papered over.
You are continuing to assume that "not voting" = "it gets so bad that the Democrats move farther left".
There is absolutely no evidence that says this will actually happen. It's all wishful thinking. It's just as likely that it could just entrench conservative influence in this country for the next 100 years, all while making this country objectively worse for the next 100 years and beyond.
The answer isn't "do nothing and hope that people realize that I'm right lulz". It's to continue to be active, which means both using the system and trying to change the system for the better overall.
|
On April 10 2020 04:04 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2020 03:57 Logo wrote:On April 10 2020 03:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2020 03:51 ChristianS wrote:On April 10 2020 03:49 Logo wrote:On April 10 2020 03:41 JimmiC wrote:
There has been about 3 people explain that Biden didn't lie, so no point me going over it again, it just goes to furthering the point that you are starting with an answer and looking for excuses for it to be true. I'm not starting with an answer, I can read statements myself and see that it's a lie. The arguments here aren't actual arguments. The arguments were: "It's as much risk as going to the grocery store" - You should avoid the grocery store as much as you can, and ideally people would only be visiting the grocery store once or twice a month if they're able to. Saying it's as much risk as going to the grocery store is exactly the point, it's that much risk and taking on that risk is bad. "My work told me the same thing" - Your work is exploiting you and risking your health, or at least deems the risk necessary for some greater purpose. Those aren't actual arguments, they're just trying to hand wave away the risk you were asked to bear. Why do you use quotation marks if it’s not what I actually said? We really should have a symbol for paraphrased quotes, cause maaaan. if you have the quote block it shouldn't be that confusing that " " is paraphrased quotes. But it’s not an accurate paraphrase either?
If you are feeling healthy, not showing symptoms, and not at risk of being exposed to COVID-19: please vote on Tuesday
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.
Given that 'exposed to anyone positive' is meaningless criteria because of asymptomatic people those are the same guideline statements. Your work told you the same thing that Joe Biden told voters.
|
On April 10 2020 04:02 Nyxisto wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2020 03:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2020 03:56 Nyxisto wrote:On April 09 2020 20:20 Logo wrote:On April 09 2020 17:03 Nyxisto wrote:just saw this meme circulating on the internet, and I think that's quite an important issue nobody here has addressed yet. All other issues aside the border and immigration is something that the American president has quite a lot of influence over. Not really sure how the rights of millions of immigrants are negligible. But really it's only one issue on a long list of completely vital issues that Biden and Trump have nothing in common over. Can you trust Joe Biden here? In the 90s he towed the Democratic line of being tough on immigration and made some important votes to restrict immigration. Then he was part of the Obama administration which was one of the toughest administrations on immigrants, even if it was then surpassed by Trump. False equivalency is also a strawman, not voting for Biden isn't because he's the same as Trump, it's because he returns us to the exact conditions that let Trump win in the first place. Except now you have a whole host of smarter and more extreme people who will use the same playbook with a much more frightening result. For all the rhetoric that Joe's team puts on his website you can't ignore the things that Joe Biden actually says. Always remember, "Nothing will fundamentally change" You can turn that game around and ask why should anyone else trust Sanders? Dude was going on about open borders being a Koch brothers proposal and was pretty much entirely reliant on a white disenfranchised Trump middle class in swing states to win. He sounded like him at times when he talked about Mexican workers. Obviously I think the reasonable position here is that you now can trust either one, because the base is so clearly in favour of open immigration politics that the personality doesn't much matter. Neither Biden or Sanders would be like Trump on immigration, even remotely, and so if you're in favour of protecting immigrants you need to vote for the Democratic candidate. This is pretty much true on all issues. Compared to Trump there is barely any difference. That's just not true. If you favor protecting immigrants neither candidate is acceptable. If you want the horrific treatment of immigrant children to go back to being unavoidable collateral damage (like when Obama was doing it) then you vote Democrat. Ask the immigrants with uncertain immigration status if they share that opinion. Or even better ask Bernie Sanders himself if there's no difference between Biden or Trump on immigration. That is just nuts, Willing to risk the well-being of millions of people just because of some fantasy revolution that ain't happening is malicious.
Honestly, I'm quite confident I've discussed this with more immigrants in the US of varying status. Rarely have we even had to address this inane strawman about whether Trump or Biden is worse. It is immediately recognizable to them Trump and Biden are both unacceptable and that they feel powerless to do anything about it and Democrats constantly reinforce that idea. My politics is about recognizing we HAVE to rebuild the trolly, pull people off the tracks, and re-lay them NOW or the trolly is heading toward switches where every path leads off a cliff and put's most of humanity on the tracks.
|
On April 10 2020 04:07 Logo wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2020 04:04 ChristianS wrote:On April 10 2020 03:57 Logo wrote:On April 10 2020 03:55 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2020 03:51 ChristianS wrote:On April 10 2020 03:49 Logo wrote:On April 10 2020 03:41 JimmiC wrote:
There has been about 3 people explain that Biden didn't lie, so no point me going over it again, it just goes to furthering the point that you are starting with an answer and looking for excuses for it to be true. I'm not starting with an answer, I can read statements myself and see that it's a lie. The arguments here aren't actual arguments. The arguments were: "It's as much risk as going to the grocery store" - You should avoid the grocery store as much as you can, and ideally people would only be visiting the grocery store once or twice a month if they're able to. Saying it's as much risk as going to the grocery store is exactly the point, it's that much risk and taking on that risk is bad. "My work told me the same thing" - Your work is exploiting you and risking your health, or at least deems the risk necessary for some greater purpose. Those aren't actual arguments, they're just trying to hand wave away the risk you were asked to bear. Why do you use quotation marks if it’s not what I actually said? We really should have a symbol for paraphrased quotes, cause maaaan. if you have the quote block it shouldn't be that confusing that " " is paraphrased quotes. But it’s not an accurate paraphrase either? Show nested quote + If you are feeling healthy, not showing symptoms, and not at risk of being exposed to COVID-19: please vote on Tuesday Show nested quote +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. Given that 'exposed to anyone positive' is meaningless criteria because of asymptomatic people those are the same guideline statements. Your work told you the same thing that Joe Biden told voters.
But my point was not “my work said it too so it’s okay.” My point was that my work’s instruction was not a statement of fact in the first place, and cannot be true or false. It was an instruction, implying a set of guidelines. You could argue for or against those guidelines, and use facts or falsehoods to support your argument, but it’s grammatically impossible for it to be “misinformation.”
Edit: “meaningless criteria” is too strong and I don’t know if it’s even necessary for us to talk about why.
|
On April 10 2020 04:11 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 10 2020 04:02 Nyxisto wrote:On April 10 2020 03:59 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 10 2020 03:56 Nyxisto wrote:On April 09 2020 20:20 Logo wrote:On April 09 2020 17:03 Nyxisto wrote:just saw this meme circulating on the internet, and I think that's quite an important issue nobody here has addressed yet. All other issues aside the border and immigration is something that the American president has quite a lot of influence over. Not really sure how the rights of millions of immigrants are negligible. But really it's only one issue on a long list of completely vital issues that Biden and Trump have nothing in common over. Can you trust Joe Biden here? In the 90s he towed the Democratic line of being tough on immigration and made some important votes to restrict immigration. Then he was part of the Obama administration which was one of the toughest administrations on immigrants, even if it was then surpassed by Trump. False equivalency is also a strawman, not voting for Biden isn't because he's the same as Trump, it's because he returns us to the exact conditions that let Trump win in the first place. Except now you have a whole host of smarter and more extreme people who will use the same playbook with a much more frightening result. For all the rhetoric that Joe's team puts on his website you can't ignore the things that Joe Biden actually says. Always remember, "Nothing will fundamentally change" You can turn that game around and ask why should anyone else trust Sanders? Dude was going on about open borders being a Koch brothers proposal and was pretty much entirely reliant on a white disenfranchised Trump middle class in swing states to win. He sounded like him at times when he talked about Mexican workers. Obviously I think the reasonable position here is that you now can trust either one, because the base is so clearly in favour of open immigration politics that the personality doesn't much matter. Neither Biden or Sanders would be like Trump on immigration, even remotely, and so if you're in favour of protecting immigrants you need to vote for the Democratic candidate. This is pretty much true on all issues. Compared to Trump there is barely any difference. That's just not true. If you favor protecting immigrants neither candidate is acceptable. If you want the horrific treatment of immigrant children to go back to being unavoidable collateral damage (like when Obama was doing it) then you vote Democrat. Ask the immigrants with uncertain immigration status if they share that opinion. Or even better ask Bernie Sanders himself if there's no difference between Biden or Trump on immigration. That is just nuts, Willing to risk the well-being of millions of people just because of some fantasy revolution that ain't happening is malicious. Honestly, I'm quite confident I've discussed this with more immigrants in the US of varying status. Rarely have we even had to address this inane strawman about whether Trump or Biden is worse. It is immediately recognizable to them Trump and Biden are both unacceptable and that they feel powerless to do anything about it and Democrats constantly reinforce that idea. My politics is about recognizing we HAVE to rebuild the trolly, pull people off the tracks, and relay them now or the trolly is heading toward switches where every path leads off a cliff and put's most of humanity on the tracks.
So lay out, in concrete details, how you would do this and actually improve society.
You have about 7 months until the next election. Please explain how not voting for Biden (in a general sense, I don't care that you in particular are in a deep Blue state) translates into a long-term positive effect for these people and for people in general.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
