EPTSolidarity however is pretty ubiquitously considered a positive trait - and greater solidarity is essentially what socialism aims to achieve.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 2259
| Forum Index > General Forum |
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 | ||
Liquid`Drone
Norway28853 Posts
Solidarity however is pretty ubiquitously considered a positive trait - and greater solidarity is essentially what socialism aims to achieve. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
(This may be prompted by Cuomo going on Morning Joe and other morning shows and saying this and stuff like it) “This wasn’t a bending of the constitution, what the president said last night, it was a breaking of the constitution”[..] “He basically declared himself King Trump, right? And all that annoying federal state back-and-forth that our Founding Fathers went through, he just disregarded that and said ‘total authority.’ Then, we could’ve had King George Washington.” www.mediaite.com (just for the video, couldn't find a different source) I think Cuomo may be saying even more on the subject in a current briefing. Basically, Trump is going even further off the rails today and yesterday- he also ran a bizarre propaganda video in the middle of the coronavirus briefing. | ||
|
Silvanel
Poland4768 Posts
| ||
|
farvacola
United States18866 Posts
| ||
|
CorsairHero
Canada9491 Posts
Says: - Biden has the most progressive platform of a presidential party nominee ever - Mentions Sanders - Joe's involvement with handling h1n1 and ebola - going back into Paris climate agreement - expanding healthcare - Republican tax cuts, interest in power, cutting healthcare benefits - Republican propaganda network (fox news) misinformation | ||
|
DarkPlasmaBall
United States46203 Posts
On April 15 2020 02:21 CorsairHero wrote: Obama (officially) endorses Biden https://twitter.com/BarackObama/status/1250088269502709762 Says: - Biden has the most progressive platform of a presidential party nominee ever - Mentions Sanders - Joe's involvement with handling h1n1 and ebola - going back into Paris climate agreement - expanding healthcare - Republican tax cuts, interest in power, cutting healthcare benefits - Republican propaganda network (fox news) misinformation And Obama manages to give a classy speech without mentioning Trump at all, and he publicly stayed out of the limelight until the dust of the Democratic primary settled and everyone (including Sanders) had already endorsed Biden. Appreciated. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
| ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24127 Posts
Biden isn't going to put their kid in a cage, so less kids is good enough. Biden isn't going to bomb their family, so less families (not even a certainty) is good enough. Biden isn't going to inappropriately touch women they know, so less rapey is good enough. Biden isn't racist against them, so less overtly racist is good enough. All the bad things Trump does to harm people, Biden just has to do less and since it won't be happening to them the choice is obvious. The reality that people like Reade have to choose between the person that personally destroyed their life as they knew it and a person who will purportedly destroy more lives of other people speaks to the rank decrepitness of the Democratic party. | ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27192 Posts
On April 15 2020 03:00 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: And Obama manages to give a classy speech without mentioning Trump at all, and he publicly stayed out of the limelight until the dust of the Democratic primary settled and everyone (including Sanders) had already endorsed Biden. Appreciated. Obama could near sell me anything, dangerous ability to have. Thought it was a decent speech did basically everything it should have done and well. Acknowledging past failures as well as successes and the other Dem candidates etc. All decent rhetorical olive branches I miss having a President who can speak in paragraphs as opposed to the bare sentences we have now. | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28853 Posts
 ) - it's not like I want either, but if those are my options I am going with cholera 100% of the time, and if there's an election in my country where the population has to choose whether 30% of the population will be infected with either plague or cholera and I'm noticing that while 40% of the population doesn't seem to care one way or the other, the other 60% is nearly dead evenly split, then not only am I going to enthusiastically vote for cholera, I'm even gonna campaign like crazy and hope to convince as many as I can. Then I might simultaneously wonder what I can do to make those other 40% less indifferent - the 30% who are actually going with the plague I am however writing off as unreachable because clearly they have different priorities from myself, however none of this makes me question whether my own preference of cholera is reasonable or not, even knowing that I am campaigning for something set to take a million lives. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24127 Posts
On April 15 2020 04:37 Liquid`Drone wrote: More like treating it like a situation where less bad is better than more bad, which seems entirely rational to me.. It's like the phrase choosing between plague and cholera (might be more of a scandinavian idiom but I googled it and it exists! ) - it's not like I want either, but if those are my options I am going with cholera 100% of the time, and if there's an election in my country where the population has to choose whether 30% of the population will be infected with either plague or cholera and I'm noticing that while 40% of the population doesn't seem to care one way or the other, the other 60% is nearly dead evenly split, then not only am I going to enthusiastically vote for cholera, I'm even gonna campaign like crazy and hope to convince as many as I can. Then I might simultaneously wonder what I can do to make those other 40% less indifferent - the 30% who are actually going with the plague I am however writing off as unreachable because clearly they have different priorities from myself, however none of this makes me question whether my own preference of cholera is reasonable or not, even knowing that I am campaigning for something set to take a million lives.Even if I accept that framing, the fact that Democrats voluntarily chose to be cholera before enthusiastically promoting it strengthens my point about their decrepitness. | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28853 Posts
| ||
|
mikedebo
Canada4341 Posts
On April 15 2020 04:37 Liquid`Drone wrote: It's like the phrase choosing between plague and cholera (might be more of a scandinavian idiom but I googled it and it exists! ) =Speaking of Scandinavian idioms -- is it true that "texas" is used as a synonym for crazy in Norwegian conversation? Like "Yo that last episode of the Bachelor was so Texas." | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24127 Posts
On April 15 2020 04:50 Liquid`Drone wrote: Sure, there's something missing in that analogy about in the future ousting the leadership that went with cholera instead of the common cold and wondering how on earth they managed to make such a stupid decision, but even then, doesn't do much to change my attitude as a voter. Which is one reason they are comfortable ignoring your preference. They get your vote whether they acquiesce or not. They'd have to be stupid not to exploit that naivety imo. If there is $1 and I want it all but you have to agree to the terms, why in the world would I offer you half if you'll settle for anything more than the alternative? Naturally that leads to both sides taking more than $1 and Democrats remain the lesser evil by just putting you less into the negative. People like to use the trolly problem (mostly because it makes them feel like they are making the moral choice by supporting cholera imo) but the dollar auction is a much better analogy imo. | ||
|
Gahlo
United States35173 Posts
On April 15 2020 05:00 GreenHorizons wrote: Which is one reason they are comfortable ignoring your preference. They get your vote whether they acquiesce or not. They'd have to be stupid not to exploit that naivety imo. If there is $1 and I want it all but you have to agree to the terms, why in the world would I offer you half if you'll settle for anything more than the alternative? Naturally that leads to both sides taking more than $1 and Democrats remain the lesser evil by just putting you less into the negative. People like to use the trolly problem (mostly because it makes them feel like they are making the moral choice by supporting cholera imo) but the dollar auction is a much better analogy imo. Because if you don't, not only do you not get any of it, but somebody else takes money from you. We've been over this, the Democrats would rather lose with Biden than win with Bernie. | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28853 Posts
On April 15 2020 04:57 mikedebo wrote: Speaking of Scandinavian idioms -- is it true that "texas" is used as a synonym for crazy in Norwegian conversation? Like "Yo that last episode of the Bachelor was so Texas." Indeed, this is correct, but it's a bit of a dated term, used more with people slightly older than myself. I wouldn't be surprised if the current younger generation starts using Florida in the same manner.  | ||
|
Liquid`Drone
Norway28853 Posts
On April 15 2020 05:00 GreenHorizons wrote: Which is one reason they are comfortable ignoring your preference. They get your vote whether they acquiesce or not. They'd have to be stupid not to exploit that naivety imo. If there is $1 and I want it all but you have to agree to the terms, why in the world would I offer you half if you'll settle for anything more than the alternative? Naturally that leads to both sides taking more than $1 and Democrats remain the lesser evil by just putting you less into the negative. People like to use the trolly problem (mostly because it makes them feel like they are making the moral choice by supporting cholera imo) but the dollar auction is a much better analogy imo. You can go with the dollar auction analogy but I'd think the alternatives are one side gives you 25 cents and the other one steals a dollar from you in addition to not giving you any. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States24127 Posts
On April 15 2020 06:55 Liquid`Drone wrote: You can go with the dollar auction analogy but I'd think the alternatives are one side gives you 25 cents and the other one steals a dollar from you in addition to not giving you any. Within the framing of the dollar auction I'd say it's clear voters in both parties are already at the stage where the bids have passed the point where profit is possible and are now bidding to mitigate their loss. + Show Spoiler + A series of rational bids will reach and ultimately surpass one dollar as the bidders seek to minimize their losses. If the first bidder bids 95 cents, and the second bidder bids one dollar (for no net gain or loss), the first bidder stands to lose 95 cents unless they bid $1.05, in which case they rationally bid more than the value of the item for sale (the dollar) in order to reduce their losses to only 5 cents. You can see this quite literally in the lesser evil/trolly problem framing. Voting Biden is bidding a $1.05 (at best imo) for the dollar. | ||
|
Nevuk
United States16280 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland27192 Posts
What a world eh? | ||
| ||
