|
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 16 2020 00:15 Biff The Understudy wrote:
So to clarify, I believe that:
1. Politics is about getting things done. I supported Obama because he did stuff that improved the lives of millions of people and pushed the US towards what I consider being a better system: more regulations, more government, more social security, and so on. I support Biden on the same ground. And I would support Sanders on that ground too. They all made, would make or will make that country a bit better. Which is already a lot to hope for.
This is hilariously naive. As Nebuchad already pointed out Neoliberals/Liberals/corrupted democrats ARE THE ENEMY of the left-wing. See, in many ways I admire Obama but in the end he is a corrupt politician in a corrupt political system that made some vague statements about opposing Citizens United but never addressed the core issues of revolving doors/donations/corporate media etc.
Another example the NYT or the Washington Post are both respectable media outlets and I am subscribed to both of them. Some of their journalists do good work (especially the NYT). But both in the end are owned by corporate interests (Jeff Bezos in one case/ Carlos Slim and others for the NYT) and on an institutional level they are entrenched in a corrupt system, they are enemies. This obviously is true for every single broadcasting network as well, everyone's beloved left-wing Late Night comedy/news shows included (yes Jon Oliver is in some way an enemy of the left-wing/progressives).
In the eyes of progressives the american political system needs to be broken down/dismantled, this is and will never be possible from the position of a politician like Biden or Obama. Also simply claiming that Obama/Biden furthered causes of progressives is not true. In many ways they are diametrically opposed to what progressives want. I could make a never ending list of examples, but just to remind you: Obama basically had to be forced to let Warren organize the consumer protection bureau, Obama thinks its totally fine to give speeches at banks for 300k an hour, Obama never adressed the fact that basically every single news network is corrupt, Obama thinks its totally fine how politicians get hired by large companies once they leave office, Obama was such a friend of Wall Street that he didnt think it necessary to prosecute people who commited fraud on a scale barely imaginable leading to the financial crisis and explicitly stated that we "shouldnt look bad". It should be obvious that this is not furthering the cause of progressives.
Biden is obviously worse in this capacity and as an American I wouldnt vote for him. Voting for him is not the solution and I am saying that as a person that to some extent "believes" in capitalism (or rather values some of its properties) and is probably far to the right of Nebuchad and GH in economic terms.
|
On April 16 2020 02:44 rope123 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2020 00:15 Biff The Understudy wrote:
So to clarify, I believe that:
1. Politics is about getting things done. I supported Obama because he did stuff that improved the lives of millions of people and pushed the US towards what I consider being a better system: more regulations, more government, more social security, and so on. I support Biden on the same ground. And I would support Sanders on that ground too. They all made, would make or will make that country a bit better. Which is already a lot to hope for.
This is hilariously naive. As Nebuchad already pointed out Neoliberals/Liberals/corrupted democrats ARE THE ENEMY of the left-wing. See, in many ways I admire Obama but in the end he is a corrupt politician in a corrupt political system that made some vague statements about opposing Citizens United but never addressed the core issues of revolving doors/donations/corporate media etc. Another example the NYT or the Washington Post are both respectable media outlets and I am subscribed to both of them. Some of their journalists do good work (especially the NYT). But both in the end are owned by corporate interests (Jeff Bezos in one case/ Carlos Slim and others for the NYT) and on an institutional level they are entrenched in a corrupt system, they are enemies. This obviously is true for every single broadcasting network as well, everyone's beloved left-wing Late Night comedy/news shows included (yes Jon Oliver is in some way an enemy of the left-wing/progressives). In the eyes of progressives the american political system needs to be broken down/dismantled, this is and will never be possible from the position of a politician like Biden or Obama. Also simply claiming that Obama/Biden furthered causes of progressives is not true. In many ways they are diametrically opposed to what progressives want. I could make a never ending list of examples, but just to remind you: Obama basically had to be forced to let Warren organize the consumer protection bureau, Obama thinks its totally fine to give speeches at banks for 300k an hour, Obama never adressed the fact that basically every single news network is corrupt, Obama thinks its totally fine how politicians get hired by large companies once they leave office, Obama was such a friend of Wall Street that he didnt think it necessary to prosecute people who commited fraud on a scale barely imaginable leading to the financial crisis and explicitly stated that we "shouldnt look bad". It should be obvious that this is not furthering the cause of progressives. Biden is obviously worse in this capacity and as an American I wouldnt vote for him. Voting for him is not the solution and I am saying that as a person that to some extent "believes" in capitalism (or rather values some of its properties) and is probably far to the right of Nebuchad and GH in economic terms.
Ok, I assume you don't know that Obama made a reform against incredibly stubborn odds and opposition that got 18,5 million uninsured people covered. You know, people who would have been left to die had they had a cancer.
You probably don't know that he also implemented a financial reform we can only dream of in Europe, where we have essentially done nothing after the crisis of 2009.
You probably also don't care about the environmental regulations (oh wait they are gone), the myriad of international agreement (oh oops, them too), and so on that his presidency brought.
The liberals are the ennemies of the left? Well, that's a shame because in that case, both liberals and leftists are gonna lose for decades. Without the liberals, no Sanders will ever be elected.
You guys make me seriously, seriously sad. I have always been a leftist, and I suspect I will always be. But your populistic, divisive BS is just a death wish for all of us. Left, centre left, far left. All you gonna achieve is get far right authoritarians elected until winning an election is nor possible anymore for anyone else.
Right now, this is not even about liberals, progressive or even right winger. It's about saving democracy. But hey, let's circle jerk about left wing purity. That's more fun.
|
On April 16 2020 01:04 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2020 00:15 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 15 2020 23:04 Nebuchad wrote:On April 15 2020 22:12 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 15 2020 21:59 Nebuchad wrote:
Are you sure you want a social democracy, Biff? Literally all of your posting is consistent with the neoliberal framework of capitalism.
Not trying to judge, just curious. Absolutely. I live in Norway and I find the system here quite ideal. Low inequalities, excellent welfare state and so on and so forth. And within Norway, I vote left. In France I voted Mélenchon twice although to be frank he sickens me, for the exact same reason I am sickened by many Berniebros. Care to tell me how I am a neoliberal capitalist? I am curious of your definition of neoliberalism, though. 99,99% of the time it's used, it's a vague strawman that doesn't encompass anything real at all, used by people who have only very vague ideas of what they are talking about. Neoliberalism is one of the main forms of capitalism, the one that we see in most countries today. In terms of policies it characterizes itself with austerity, small government and privatizations (general fetishization of the market), and globalization. But then again, most hard-line liberals already fit in that definition, I guess, so we don't really need a new term for it. In terms of framework, neoliberalism differentiates itself from social democracy in that in social democracy, a leftist would represent the left and the liberal represents the right. In neoliberalism, there is no more real left and right, there is a leftist party that represents the center left, the center and the center right and a rightwing party that represents the extreme right (the extreme left can fuck off or, alternatively, get yelled at when they don't support the center). I think this difference is quite key. I think you have clearly adopted the neoliberal framework when you talk about politics. The right are the monsters like Trump, and anyone remotely sensible is a leftist (except the extreme left that are unsound and believe in unicorns). The goal of politics is, according to what you say, to advance the cause of the left. But voting for liberals advances the cause of the left in your view, and some of the elements that are traditionally associated with the left in social democracy (mainly populism and opposition to the system), you find profane. If I had to diagnose this (and I don't, I'm being a bit of an ass here), I think your misplaced trust in liberal media has caused you to integrate the neoliberal framework for society. Your inclinations are leftist, your preffered policies are not neoliberal, which is why you don't think people should die in the street if they're poor; excellent. But you think about politics in neoliberal terms, when you think of the left and the right, and when you think about what's good or bad for the political future of society. On April 15 2020 22:23 Biff The Understudy wrote:On April 15 2020 22:15 Nebuchad wrote:
You remove the other candidates by cutting off their funding and promising stuff to them. If you have a somewhat coordinated, small, donor class, it's pretty easy to do that, especially if they all have the same interests. You keep Warren in the race by not cutting her funding, actually by increasing her funding (remember how she suddenly got a Superpac at the end?) That Superpac was heavily financed by a specific donor, Karla Jurvetson. If you look into her you can clearly see that she wasn't actually interested in Warren winning (and btw, immediately after Biden got his big win, she stopped funding Warren).
For the DNC alone, you can see Tom Perez after Iowa, when Sanders was doing his remontada and looked like he was going to get Buttigieg: "Enough is enough, recount!!", but suddenly Sanders stopped just short of overcoming: "Actually it's okay, no recount". A bunch of mistakes are discovered in the calculations of the Iowa primary, they have a lawyer arguing that it would be unfair to the spirit of the primary to correct those mistakes (or whatever he said exactly, I don't remember).
The DNC is liberal, they want a liberal to win. Why wouldn't they? It makes logical sense. I don't understand why leftists are supposed to be all naive about what we can do with politics because politics are treacherous and we want unicorns, but when presented with the most obvious political maneuvers, we're the only people who don't deny their existence. Although the money in politics is super fucked in the US, and probably the main challenge of its democratic institutions, your description of how shadowy interests play 27D chess and how Warren was in fact just there to undermine Biden were entertaining. Here is another narrative: Sanders lost because his rhetoric is divisive and too edgy for many folks. He is a great candidate, with great ideas, and most probably the best platform, but he fucked up. And that he scares people off when he tries to win the Revolutionary Millenials. Next time, progressive shouldn't do that and they can win. Or they can keep whining, learn nothing and make conspiracy theories about why they lost. And get Trump elected for good measure because why the fuck not since we are trying to be as dumb as possible? Well I'm happy that I was entertaining. Was I also lying? It's pretty insulting to normal chess that you think this fairly straightforward scheme I described was 27D chess. That's an interesting home definition of neoliberalism you made there. I don't really see how it applies to people and especially not to me but whatever. So to clarify, I believe that: 1. Politics is about getting things done. I supported Obama because he did stuff that improved the lives of millions of people and pushed the US towards what I consider being a better system: more regulations, more government, more social security, and so on. I support Biden on the same ground. And I would support Sanders on that ground too. They all made, would make or will make that country a bit better. Which is already a lot to hope for. 2. Politics is about compromises, coalition building and about listening to each other. Liberal and progressives have basically the same goal at least in the frame of what can be achieved. It's just that liberals are about taking stuff step by step and progressive want radical changes. I believe we need both. And they need to fucking work together. Want it or not, no liberal will ever be elected without progressive votes, and no progressive will be elected without convincing the liberals. 3. I loath populism. Anyone who pretend having the monopoly of representing "the people" and describes his opponents as not-so-real-people makes me sick. That's why I find so pathetic to call consent manufacturing your failure to convince people. 4. I think the US is fucked up because of its culture. And it's gonna take decades if not centuries to change. Meanwhile all I hope for is that it gets a bit better and doesn't end up being a southern style, white supremacist inspired authoritarian dystopia. Which, let's be clear, is the path it's taking. Now if you want to call me neoliberal because of some vague home made notion that when I prefer a centrist to some kind of neo-confederate madman and that I don't think liberals are the enemy of the left, I am a minion of some sinister neo capitalist new world order, feel free, I don't mind. Neoliberalism means something (Thatcherian / Reaganian politics, basically), the rest is just mumbo jumbo that has the same value that other fashionable concepts like "globalists" and so on. Home definition of neoliberalism? What kind of criticism is that? Are you implying that it's a wrong definition? If so I'd like to see your work, rather than this snide remark. Let me show you how this can work: That's an interesting home definition of populism that you have here. Here are my problems with it: it is inconsistent with the dictionary definition of populism, that talks of representing the people only in the sense of representing the common folk against the elite, not in the sense that everyone agrees with us and if you don't you aren't real people. Another issue is that you switch from a policy standpoint to an identity standpoint. Just because there are people who aren't part of the elite and who are against these policies doesn't make it untrue that those policies are better for the common folk, in the same way that the existence of black republicans doesn't disprove that socially liberal policies are better for black people in general. Politics is not about compromises, politics is about winning. We see that you know this subconsciously when we look at how you approach other political topics, like for example racism. You don't go "Hey, I think we shouldn't treat people worse because of their race, you guys think we should, let's compromise and treat them worse only in some respects!", you go "Fuck you, racism is wrong, we shouldn't do racism". That is good, that is the correct thing to do. Even on this specific subject, you don't want to compromise, you want one specific group to compromise with another group. If Biden doesn't do anything to compromise with the left in an attempt to earn their votes, you're not going to hold it against him. It's okay if he doesn't want to compromise. It's only wrong when we don't. We can see that, whether you realize it or not, you apply "compromise" unequally and with a specific direction. It is a talking point that you picked up, presumably in the liberal media while they were manufacturing consent. But the liberal media uses it specifically to shame leftists into voting for liberals, and in no other cases. Same as unity: it's a weapon, not an argument. "I don't think liberals are the enemy of the left" is an important statement when it comes to social democracy and neoliberalism. In the social democratic framework, liberals ARE the enemy of the left. It's not my opinion, it's an historical fact, the main political opposition in social democracies was always that of the left vs the right, the left being represented by a leftist and the right being represented by a liberal. When you oppose that, for reasons that are unclear to me, you by definition favor the framework of neoliberalism. Reaganian politics are at the start of neoliberalism in the US (well, Carter first, but whatevs). Clinton then adopts those politics and then pretty soon they engulf both parties' whole vision of economics. Same happens in Europe, not everywhere at the same rate (for example you can argue that it's only really happening in France right now with Macron). Ultimately the main factor was the fall of the USSR weakening all of the leftist parties worldwide, and leftist parties and leftist boomers moving to the center economically as a result of this. Even the leftist parties who didn't go full neoliberal, like the ones in France before Macron and in Switzerland, still moved to the center - I don't know the history of those in Scandinavia but I'd be surprised to learn it wasn't the same. We're still feeling the effects of this today.
Sure. Your definition of populism implies that when you lose, you know, for example a primary, you just claim that the people that voted for your opponent are the pawns of the elite, and that their opinion basically doesn't count.
So it recoups mine really. Biden got the black vote, overwhelmingly. So I suppose he represent them, right? I mean, that's the rules of the game? Well a populist will tell you that no, their opinion is manufactured, and shit like that, because, hey, he represent the elites, so you have to evacuate the fact that apparently, he represents both the elite and the blacks, that are probably not the elite.
I don't find your definition of neoliberalism very intelligent nor very useful. Right and left are relative to where you are and what the context is. Obama would be right wing in Norway, and I would not vote for him. He is left in America, because his vision is left of the status quo.
In Norway, he might have dismantled some social programs, in America, he got 18,5 million uninsured people covered. Right and left is about what you do. Contrarily to you, I care about what people do. Because that changes the lives of people and that's what it's about. Your manual of left wing purity doesn't do shit for anyone.
But anyway, I'm done here. We have all made our points. As I said to our colleague, you make me sad, because I think we actually mostly agree on what would be a good country, but all you guys are ever gonna achieve with your theory and your purity is to get that fucker elected again. And that's probably will be the last election anyone else than Trump or a far right candidate can ever win in America.
|
Your posts read like a string of neoliberal memes
Leftist: "I'm not going to vote for a credibly accused rapist racist that locked innocent children in cages and denied them basic hygiene."
Neoliberal: "Oh great another circle jerk about left wing purity"
What should make you sad imo is the enthusiasm with which even folks like yourself support horrific people that do horrific things.
|
On April 16 2020 03:12 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Sure. Your definition of populism implies that when you lose, you know, for example a primary, you just claim that the people that voted for your opponent are the pawns of the elite, and that their opinion basically doesn't count.
So it recoups mine really. Biden got the black vote, overwhelmingly. So I suppose he represent them, right? I mean, that's the rules of the game? Well a populist will tell you that no, their opinion is manufactured, and shit like that, because, hey, he represent the elites, so you have to evacuate the fact that apparently, he represents both the elite and the blacks, that are probably not the elite.
I don't find your definition of neoliberalism very intelligent nor very useful. Right and left are relative to where you are and what the context is. Obama would be right wing in Norway, and I would not vote for him. He is left in America, because his vision is left of the status quo.
In Norway, he might have dismantled some social programs, in America, he got 18,5 million uninsured people covered. Right and left is about what you do. Contrarily to you, I care about what people do.
What are you talking about? The definition of populism doesn't imply that, and I could imply it regardless of my ideology. Have you never seen a liberal state that someone voted against their own interest because they were brainwashed by Fox News? This has the same content. The fact that they voted for the republican doesn't mean that the policies of the republican are good for people, and it doesn't mean that the republicans represent the working class, and it doesn't mean that there was no propaganda happening. Reality matters, not just when we're talking about conservatives, also when we're talking about liberals.
You're the person willing to claim that people with no leftist policies whatsoever represent victories for the left. I'm the one who wants to keep looking at their policies and see whether they factually advance the cause of leftism or not. And for that, you tell me you care about what people do, and I don't. It's orwellian really.
Based on what you said and the fact that you keep voting for the left in Norway I suppose I agree our ideal worlds are somewhat similar. It's a shame that no one ever got you to realize how the system we're fighting is maintaining itself.
On April 16 2020 03:12 Biff The Understudy wrote:
all you guys are ever gonna achieve with your theory and your purity is to get that fucker elected again.
What have you achieved?
We've given the reins to people who think liberals are cool and leftist for 40 years now, is the world doing better or worse?
|
On April 16 2020 03:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2020 02:44 rope123 wrote:On April 16 2020 00:15 Biff The Understudy wrote:
So to clarify, I believe that:
1. Politics is about getting things done. I supported Obama because he did stuff that improved the lives of millions of people and pushed the US towards what I consider being a better system: more regulations, more government, more social security, and so on. I support Biden on the same ground. And I would support Sanders on that ground too. They all made, would make or will make that country a bit better. Which is already a lot to hope for.
This is hilariously naive. As Nebuchad already pointed out Neoliberals/Liberals/corrupted democrats ARE THE ENEMY of the left-wing. See, in many ways I admire Obama but in the end he is a corrupt politician in a corrupt political system that made some vague statements about opposing Citizens United but never addressed the core issues of revolving doors/donations/corporate media etc. Another example the NYT or the Washington Post are both respectable media outlets and I am subscribed to both of them. Some of their journalists do good work (especially the NYT). But both in the end are owned by corporate interests (Jeff Bezos in one case/ Carlos Slim and others for the NYT) and on an institutional level they are entrenched in a corrupt system, they are enemies. This obviously is true for every single broadcasting network as well, everyone's beloved left-wing Late Night comedy/news shows included (yes Jon Oliver is in some way an enemy of the left-wing/progressives). In the eyes of progressives the american political system needs to be broken down/dismantled, this is and will never be possible from the position of a politician like Biden or Obama. Also simply claiming that Obama/Biden furthered causes of progressives is not true. In many ways they are diametrically opposed to what progressives want. I could make a never ending list of examples, but just to remind you: Obama basically had to be forced to let Warren organize the consumer protection bureau, Obama thinks its totally fine to give speeches at banks for 300k an hour, Obama never adressed the fact that basically every single news network is corrupt, Obama thinks its totally fine how politicians get hired by large companies once they leave office, Obama was such a friend of Wall Street that he didnt think it necessary to prosecute people who commited fraud on a scale barely imaginable leading to the financial crisis and explicitly stated that we "shouldnt look bad". It should be obvious that this is not furthering the cause of progressives. Biden is obviously worse in this capacity and as an American I wouldnt vote for him. Voting for him is not the solution and I am saying that as a person that to some extent "believes" in capitalism (or rather values some of its properties) and is probably far to the right of Nebuchad and GH in economic terms. Ok, I assume you don't know that Obama made a reform against incredibly stubborn odds and opposition that got 18,5 million uninsured people covered. You know, people who would have been left to die had they had a cancer.
There was only stubborn odds for this because the Dems have packed the party with moderate and neoliberals who would oppose any sound system of healthcare reform AND on top of that the Dems basically pre-emptively negotiated the deal to keep it more palatable to Republicans which didn't happen at all. Every non-leftist part of the ACA just made the bill significantly worse.
Bringing up ACA only weakens the point anyways. The only arguably non-incremental piece of progressive legislation passed in the past 20-30 years has stood the test of time when nothing else seems to have. Republicans have dismantled most of what Obama has done with ease, but this one they haven't been able to. Maybe implementing good bold policy that actually helps average people has some merit compared to means tested incrementalism? I wonder which side between left and neoliberals are advocating for that type of policy.
You probably don't know that he also implemented a financial reform we can only dream of in Europe, where we have essentially done nothing after the crisis of 2009.
Between Obama and Bill Clinton do we have a net gain or net loss on positive financial reform? It's the latter. Even then because he didn't actually have his admin hold anyone really accountable most of the reforms barely helped the average person and/or have been rolled back.
|
On April 16 2020 03:57 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2020 03:12 Biff The Understudy wrote:
Sure. Your definition of populism implies that when you lose, you know, for example a primary, you just claim that the people that voted for your opponent are the pawns of the elite, and that their opinion basically doesn't count.
So it recoups mine really. Biden got the black vote, overwhelmingly. So I suppose he represent them, right? I mean, that's the rules of the game? Well a populist will tell you that no, their opinion is manufactured, and shit like that, because, hey, he represent the elites, so you have to evacuate the fact that apparently, he represents both the elite and the blacks, that are probably not the elite.
I don't find your definition of neoliberalism very intelligent nor very useful. Right and left are relative to where you are and what the context is. Obama would be right wing in Norway, and I would not vote for him. He is left in America, because his vision is left of the status quo.
In Norway, he might have dismantled some social programs, in America, he got 18,5 million uninsured people covered. Right and left is about what you do. Contrarily to you, I care about what people do. What are you talking about? The definition of populism doesn't imply that, and I could imply it regardless of my ideology. Have you never seen a liberal state that someone voted against their own interest because they were brainwashed by Fox News? This has the same content. The fact that they voted for the republican doesn't mean that the policies of the republican are good for people, and it doesn't mean that the republicans represent the working class, and it doesn't mean that there was no propaganda happening. Reality matters, not just when we're talking about conservatives, also when we're talking about liberals. You're the person willing to claim that people with no leftist policies whatsoever represent victories for the left. I'm the one who wants to keep looking at their policies and see whether they factually advance the cause of leftism or not. And for that, you tell me you care about what people do, and I don't. It's orwellian really. Based on what you said and the fact that you keep voting for the left in Norway I suppose I agree our ideal worlds are somewhat similar. It's a shame that no one ever got you to realize how the system we're fighting is maintaining itself. Show nested quote +On April 16 2020 03:12 Biff The Understudy wrote:
all you guys are ever gonna achieve with your theory and your purity is to get that fucker elected again. What have you achieved? We've given the reins to people who think liberals are cool and leftist for 40 years now, is the world doing better or worse?
Better obviously.
|
On April 16 2020 03:14 GreenHorizons wrote:
Your posts read like a string of neoliberal memes
Leftist: "I'm not going to vote for a credibly accused rapist racist that locked innocent children in cages and denied them basic hygiene."
Neoliberal: "Oh great another circle jerk about left wing purity"
What should make you sad imo is the enthusiasm with which even folks like yourself support horrific people that do horrific things.
Luckily I'm not in a swing state, so my vote doesn't matter.
|
On April 16 2020 05:17 mierin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2020 03:14 GreenHorizons wrote:
Your posts read like a string of neoliberal memes
Leftist: "I'm not going to vote for a credibly accused rapist racist that locked innocent children in cages and denied them basic hygiene."
Neoliberal: "Oh great another circle jerk about left wing purity"
What should make you sad imo is the enthusiasm with which even folks like yourself support horrific people that do horrific things. Luckily I'm not in a swing state, so my vote doesn't matter.
I can't even mention the whole supporting the people selling bombs to be dropped on school buses full of kids and hospitals because that's just fully normalized as collateral damage of being a Democrat (or Republican) at this point.
US imperialism is just the way the world has to be for both parties and disagreeing with that is heresy punishable by excommunication (but you still have to vote Dem despite your excommunication or you're the bad guy).
But yeah, not being in a swing state means our votes have already been stripped of significance beyond political signalling. I don't envy the burden of having one that might matter in this election though.
|
On April 16 2020 05:17 mierin wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2020 03:14 GreenHorizons wrote:
Your posts read like a string of neoliberal memes
Leftist: "I'm not going to vote for a credibly accused rapist racist that locked innocent children in cages and denied them basic hygiene."
Neoliberal: "Oh great another circle jerk about left wing purity"
What should make you sad imo is the enthusiasm with which even folks like yourself support horrific people that do horrific things. Luckily I'm not in a swing state, so my vote doesn't matter.
Please check if you can vote for progressives down ballot and do that if you can (just in case, not saying that you wouldn't have if I didn't tell you ^^' )
|
I think the viewpoint that voters should abstain from voting for either major party candidate (the only name I’ve seen for this viewpoint is “busters,” which is terrible; “abstainers” is nearly as bad) is poorly characterized, which is hurting the discussion immensely. I don’t think people advocating that position are necessarily arriving at it for the same reasons, or agree on its implications, so it makes it a little hard to argue with.
I’d start here: I think generally, voters should vote however they think will make the country and world better. For the question of which boxes to tick on November 3rd, I think the range of likely outcomes for Biden is dramatically and unambiguously better for pretty much everyone than the range of outcomes for Trump, and it’s not close. Imagined as normal distributions with 95% confidence intervals, the best Trump outcome would be several standard deviations worse than the worst outcome for Biden.
Given that, I think the obvious problem with a position premising an abstain/third party vote on “purity” or “moral high ground” is that it’s selfish. It appears exactly analogous to the person refusing to pull the lever so the trolley kills 2 people instead of 20, because they don’t want to be “morally responsible” for the 2 deaths. Whatever guilt or hurt pride it might cause them, that’s in their head, whereas the consequences are very real. If the objection is primarily about how pulling the lever will make you feel, I think the appropriate response is to do it anyway, and get therapy if it fucks with your head.
Many of you guys think abstaining from voting for a major party candidate *will* make the country and world better, and are making cases for why; if so, we should talk about how that would happen. But in doing so, it’s natural that people like myself will point out the terrible and preventable consequences of a second Trump term, considering our position would prevent them. Whatever benefit you think the world would gain from abstaining will have to outweigh those extremely significant costs.
Others are arguing that *your* vote doesn’t matter (probably true), so you’re gonna vote however sends the signal you want/feels right. I don’t really care about that; if we’re starting from the premise that your vote doesn’t affect anything, I’m not sure why I should. But if we adjust the question from “how should YOU vote on November 3rd” to “how should people in swing states vote on November 3rd” I think the burden is still to demonstrate how your position would make the country and world better.
|
On April 16 2020 05:55 ChristianS wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I think the viewpoint that voters should abstain from voting for either major party candidate (the only name I’ve seen for this viewpoint is “busters,” which is terrible; “abstainers” is nearly as bad) is poorly characterized, which is hurting the discussion immensely. I don’t think people advocating that position are necessarily arriving at it for the same reasons, or agree on its implications, so it makes it a little hard to argue with.
I’d start here: I think generally, voters should vote however they think will make the country and world better. For the question of which boxes to tick on November 3rd, I think the range of likely outcomes for Biden is dramatically and unambiguously better for pretty much everyone than the range of outcomes for Trump, and it’s not close. Imagined as normal distributions with 95% confidence intervals, the best Trump outcome would be several standard deviations worse than the worst outcome for Biden.
Given that, I think the obvious problem with a position premising an abstain/third party vote on “purity” or “moral high ground” is that it’s selfish. It appears exactly analogous to the person refusing to pull the lever so the trolley kills 2 people instead of 20, because they don’t want to be “morally responsible” for the 2 deaths. Whatever guilt or hurt pride it might cause them, that’s in their head, whereas the consequences are very real. If the objection is primarily about how pulling the lever will make you feel, I think the appropriate response is to do it anyway, and get therapy if it fucks with your head.
Many of you guys think abstaining from voting for a major party candidate *will* make the country and world better, and are making cases for why; if so, we should talk about how that would happen. But in doing so, it’s natural that people like myself will point out the terrible and preventable consequences of a second Trump term, considering our position would prevent them. Whatever benefit you think the world would gain from abstaining will have to outweigh those extremely significant costs.
Others are arguing that *your* vote doesn’t matter (probably true), so you’re gonna vote however sends the signal you want/feels right. I don’t really care about that; if we’re starting from the premise that your vote doesn’t affect anything, I’m not sure why I should. But if we adjust the question from “how should YOU vote on November 3rd” to “how should people in swing states vote on November 3rd” I think the burden is still to demonstrate how your position would make the country and world better
Your premise is fundamentally flawed imo for the reasons I've outlined with the trolly scenario and how it's a moral abstraction meant to absolve the people intent on killing the people on the tracks. I'm not interested in engaging with this line of argumentation further than that.
As for voting, people should vote for the person that best represents their politics imo. Trying to game it out with Democrats for the last several decades has gotten no measurable improvements in the gaps between white and Black citizens in this country (besides superficial representation) and a lot of backsliding.
|
On April 16 2020 03:14 GreenHorizons wrote:
Your posts read like a string of neoliberal memes
I find this rich. Your view of literally everything, from 9/11 to leftist dictators, is completely predetermined by your political views. Accusations against Sanders or Fidel Castro? Obviously false. Conjecture and speculation about Biden or Hillary Clinton? They are "racist", "probably rapist".
|
On April 16 2020 06:01 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2020 05:55 ChristianS wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I think the viewpoint that voters should abstain from voting for either major party candidate (the only name I’ve seen for this viewpoint is “busters,” which is terrible; “abstainers” is nearly as bad) is poorly characterized, which is hurting the discussion immensely. I don’t think people advocating that position are necessarily arriving at it for the same reasons, or agree on its implications, so it makes it a little hard to argue with.
I’d start here: I think generally, voters should vote however they think will make the country and world better. For the question of which boxes to tick on November 3rd, I think the range of likely outcomes for Biden is dramatically and unambiguously better for pretty much everyone than the range of outcomes for Trump, and it’s not close. Imagined as normal distributions with 95% confidence intervals, the best Trump outcome would be several standard deviations worse than the worst outcome for Biden.
Given that, I think the obvious problem with a position premising an abstain/third party vote on “purity” or “moral high ground” is that it’s selfish. It appears exactly analogous to the person refusing to pull the lever so the trolley kills 2 people instead of 20, because they don’t want to be “morally responsible” for the 2 deaths. Whatever guilt or hurt pride it might cause them, that’s in their head, whereas the consequences are very real. If the objection is primarily about how pulling the lever will make you feel, I think the appropriate response is to do it anyway, and get therapy if it fucks with your head.
Many of you guys think abstaining from voting for a major party candidate *will* make the country and world better, and are making cases for why; if so, we should talk about how that would happen. But in doing so, it’s natural that people like myself will point out the terrible and preventable consequences of a second Trump term, considering our position would prevent them. Whatever benefit you think the world would gain from abstaining will have to outweigh those extremely significant costs.
Others are arguing that *your* vote doesn’t matter (probably true), so you’re gonna vote however sends the signal you want/feels right. I don’t really care about that; if we’re starting from the premise that your vote doesn’t affect anything, I’m not sure why I should. But if we adjust the question from “how should YOU vote on November 3rd” to “how should people in swing states vote on November 3rd” I think the burden is still to demonstrate how your position would make the country and world better Your premise is fundamentally flawed imo for the reasons I've outlined with the trolly scenario and how it's a moral abstraction meant to absolve the people intent on killing the people on the tracks. I'm not interested in engaging with this line of argumentation further than that. As for voting, people should vote for the person that best represents their politics imo. Trying to game it out with Democrats for the last several decades has gotten no measurable improvements in the gaps between white and Black citizens in this country (besides superficial representation) and a lot of backsliding.
Who’s absolved? You’re talking like this is a fundamental flaw in the analogy, but presumably there’s some villain out there who tied all these people to these tracks. If you want to say “once this lever business is sorted we should really make some serious changes to the system that is allowing all these people to get tied to these tracks all the time,” sure, we can talk about how to achieve that too. But for the question of what to do on November 3rd, I think (as in other areas of life!) people should exercise what little power they have to make the world better as much as they can. Put the analogy aside, if you want to: why people should knowingly *not* choose the option available to them that produces the best outcomes for the world?
I get that voting Biden won’t solve a lot of the biggest problems (Imperialism! Racism! Inequality!) in the world, but neither will not voting Biden. I don’t pretend to know the answer to those problems, if one exists, but I don’t think it starts in the ballot box at all. If Americans don’t care about women and children being blown up by bombs as a result of American imperialism, then no democratic system is going to address it. Presumably the only solutions are to either make them care so democracy can stop it, or forget democracy and find some other way to seize power. I don’t see how voting for Jill Stein or w/e accomplishes either.
|
On April 16 2020 06:29 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2020 06:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 16 2020 05:55 ChristianS wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I think the viewpoint that voters should abstain from voting for either major party candidate (the only name I’ve seen for this viewpoint is “busters,” which is terrible; “abstainers” is nearly as bad) is poorly characterized, which is hurting the discussion immensely. I don’t think people advocating that position are necessarily arriving at it for the same reasons, or agree on its implications, so it makes it a little hard to argue with.
I’d start here: I think generally, voters should vote however they think will make the country and world better. For the question of which boxes to tick on November 3rd, I think the range of likely outcomes for Biden is dramatically and unambiguously better for pretty much everyone than the range of outcomes for Trump, and it’s not close. Imagined as normal distributions with 95% confidence intervals, the best Trump outcome would be several standard deviations worse than the worst outcome for Biden.
Given that, I think the obvious problem with a position premising an abstain/third party vote on “purity” or “moral high ground” is that it’s selfish. It appears exactly analogous to the person refusing to pull the lever so the trolley kills 2 people instead of 20, because they don’t want to be “morally responsible” for the 2 deaths. Whatever guilt or hurt pride it might cause them, that’s in their head, whereas the consequences are very real. If the objection is primarily about how pulling the lever will make you feel, I think the appropriate response is to do it anyway, and get therapy if it fucks with your head.
Many of you guys think abstaining from voting for a major party candidate *will* make the country and world better, and are making cases for why; if so, we should talk about how that would happen. But in doing so, it’s natural that people like myself will point out the terrible and preventable consequences of a second Trump term, considering our position would prevent them. Whatever benefit you think the world would gain from abstaining will have to outweigh those extremely significant costs.
Others are arguing that *your* vote doesn’t matter (probably true), so you’re gonna vote however sends the signal you want/feels right. I don’t really care about that; if we’re starting from the premise that your vote doesn’t affect anything, I’m not sure why I should. But if we adjust the question from “how should YOU vote on November 3rd” to “how should people in swing states vote on November 3rd” I think the burden is still to demonstrate how your position would make the country and world better Your premise is fundamentally flawed imo for the reasons I've outlined with the trolly scenario and how it's a moral abstraction meant to absolve the people intent on killing the people on the tracks. I'm not interested in engaging with this line of argumentation further than that. As for voting, people should vote for the person that best represents their politics imo. Trying to game it out with Democrats for the last several decades has gotten no measurable improvements in the gaps between white and Black citizens in this country (besides superficial representation) and a lot of backsliding. Who’s absolved? You’re talking like this is a fundamental flaw in the analogy, but presumably there’s some villain out there who tied all these people to these tracks. If you want to say “once this lever business is sorted we should really make some serious changes to the system that is allowing all these people to get tied to these tracks all the time,” sure, we can talk about how to achieve that too. + Show Spoiler +But for the question of what to do on November 3rd, I think (as in other areas of life!) people should exercise what little power they have to make the world better as much as they can. Put the analogy aside, if you want to: why people should knowingly *not* choose the option available to them that produces the best outcomes for the world?
I get that voting Biden won’t solve a lot of the biggest problems (Imperialism! Racism! Inequality!) in the world, but neither will not voting Biden. I don’t pretend to know the answer to those problems, if one exists, but I don’t think it starts in the ballot box at all. If Americans don’t care about women and children being blown up by bombs as a result of American imperialism, then no democratic system is going to address it. Presumably the only solutions are to either make them care so democracy can stop it, or forget democracy and find some other way to seize power. I don’t see how voting for Jill Stein or w/e accomplishes either.
The people making the argument literally say they are making the moral choice. It is a fundamental flaw with the analogy because there are people tying others to the tracks. As to “once this lever business is sorted we should really make some serious changes to the system that is allowing all these people to get tied to these tracks all the time,” my point is that they've been saying that to Black people for decades and I'm not falling for it. Every election is a new switch with more people on both tracks.
|
On April 16 2020 06:34 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2020 06:29 ChristianS wrote:On April 16 2020 06:01 GreenHorizons wrote:On April 16 2020 05:55 ChristianS wrote:+ Show Spoiler +I think the viewpoint that voters should abstain from voting for either major party candidate (the only name I’ve seen for this viewpoint is “busters,” which is terrible; “abstainers” is nearly as bad) is poorly characterized, which is hurting the discussion immensely. I don’t think people advocating that position are necessarily arriving at it for the same reasons, or agree on its implications, so it makes it a little hard to argue with.
I’d start here: I think generally, voters should vote however they think will make the country and world better. For the question of which boxes to tick on November 3rd, I think the range of likely outcomes for Biden is dramatically and unambiguously better for pretty much everyone than the range of outcomes for Trump, and it’s not close. Imagined as normal distributions with 95% confidence intervals, the best Trump outcome would be several standard deviations worse than the worst outcome for Biden.
Given that, I think the obvious problem with a position premising an abstain/third party vote on “purity” or “moral high ground” is that it’s selfish. It appears exactly analogous to the person refusing to pull the lever so the trolley kills 2 people instead of 20, because they don’t want to be “morally responsible” for the 2 deaths. Whatever guilt or hurt pride it might cause them, that’s in their head, whereas the consequences are very real. If the objection is primarily about how pulling the lever will make you feel, I think the appropriate response is to do it anyway, and get therapy if it fucks with your head.
Many of you guys think abstaining from voting for a major party candidate *will* make the country and world better, and are making cases for why; if so, we should talk about how that would happen. But in doing so, it’s natural that people like myself will point out the terrible and preventable consequences of a second Trump term, considering our position would prevent them. Whatever benefit you think the world would gain from abstaining will have to outweigh those extremely significant costs.
Others are arguing that *your* vote doesn’t matter (probably true), so you’re gonna vote however sends the signal you want/feels right. I don’t really care about that; if we’re starting from the premise that your vote doesn’t affect anything, I’m not sure why I should. But if we adjust the question from “how should YOU vote on November 3rd” to “how should people in swing states vote on November 3rd” I think the burden is still to demonstrate how your position would make the country and world better Your premise is fundamentally flawed imo for the reasons I've outlined with the trolly scenario and how it's a moral abstraction meant to absolve the people intent on killing the people on the tracks. I'm not interested in engaging with this line of argumentation further than that. As for voting, people should vote for the person that best represents their politics imo. Trying to game it out with Democrats for the last several decades has gotten no measurable improvements in the gaps between white and Black citizens in this country (besides superficial representation) and a lot of backsliding. Who’s absolved? You’re talking like this is a fundamental flaw in the analogy, but presumably there’s some villain out there who tied all these people to these tracks. If you want to say “once this lever business is sorted we should really make some serious changes to the system that is allowing all these people to get tied to these tracks all the time,” sure, we can talk about how to achieve that too. + Show Spoiler +But for the question of what to do on November 3rd, I think (as in other areas of life!) people should exercise what little power they have to make the world better as much as they can. Put the analogy aside, if you want to: why people should knowingly *not* choose the option available to them that produces the best outcomes for the world?
I get that voting Biden won’t solve a lot of the biggest problems (Imperialism! Racism! Inequality!) in the world, but neither will not voting Biden. I don’t pretend to know the answer to those problems, if one exists, but I don’t think it starts in the ballot box at all. If Americans don’t care about women and children being blown up by bombs as a result of American imperialism, then no democratic system is going to address it. Presumably the only solutions are to either make them care so democracy can stop it, or forget democracy and find some other way to seize power. I don’t see how voting for Jill Stein or w/e accomplishes either. The people making the argument literally say they are making the moral choice. It is a fundamental flaw with the analogy because there are people tying others to the tracks. As to “once this lever business is sorted we should really make some serious changes to the system that is allowing all these people to get tied to these tracks all the time,” my point is that they've been saying that to Black people for decades and I'm not falling for it.
Come on, you started the spoiler in the middle of a paragraph cutting out the part where I ask you a direct question.
Yes, I’m saying the option available to you that produces the best outcomes for the world is the moral choice. That’s basically the whole point of utilitarianism. That there are other problems pulling the lever doesn’t solve is only relevant if you’re gonna argue that not pulling the lever somehow does solve them, which I think if clearly doesn’t. Otherwise, let’s move on from “how should we vote in November” since we know it won’t solve all these big problems, and talk about how we will solve them instead.
|
Is it still the moral choice if it almost guarantees that same number of people if not more people will be tied to the tracks at the next intersection? As opposed to the more people getting hit and maybe next time the people tying the slightly less people to the tracks will switch to tying significantly less people to the tracks? Is the risk worth it?
|
On April 16 2020 07:07 Zambrah wrote:
Is it still the moral choice if it almost guarantees that same number of people if not more people will be tied to the tracks at the next intersection? As opposed to the more people getting hit and maybe next time the people tying the slightly less people to the tracks will switch to tying significantly less people to the tracks? Is the risk worth it?
See, this is part of why I don’t think you guys are actually coming from the same place. What you are making here is an argument that not pulling the lever *will* produce better outcomes in the long run. If you think so, we should talk about why. But in doing so, you’re accepting all the negative outcomes of a second Trump term as regrettable costs that will be outweighed by the benefits you think it will achieve down the line. Perhaps we can come up with a sequential game that will serve as a better analogy in subsequent elections (but since it came up, the dollar auction seems like a terrible analogy to me).
But that doesn’t seem to be GH’s argument. So in responding to GH I’ll inevitably say something you’ll bristle at, thinking I’m mischaracterizing your position, while in responding to you, he’ll think I’m missing his point. That’s why I think it would be useful to peel apart your motivations and reasoning, so we don’t waste too much time arguing against a position that the person we’re talking to doesn’t even hold.
|
On April 16 2020 07:21 ChristianS wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2020 07:07 Zambrah wrote:
Is it still the moral choice if it almost guarantees that same number of people if not more people will be tied to the tracks at the next intersection? As opposed to the more people getting hit and maybe next time the people tying the slightly less people to the tracks will switch to tying significantly less people to the tracks? Is the risk worth it? See, this is part of why I don’t think you guys are actually coming from the same place. What you are making here is an argument that not pulling the lever *will* produce better outcomes in the long run. If you think so, we should talk about why. But in doing so, you’re accepting all the negative outcomes of a second Trump term as regrettable costs that will be outweighed by the benefits you think it will achieve down the line. Perhaps we can come up with a sequential game that will serve as a better analogy in subsequent elections (but since it came up, the dollar auction seems like a terrible analogy to me). But that doesn’t seem to be GH’s argument. So in responding to GH I’ll inevitably say something you’ll bristle at, thinking I’m mischaracterizing your position, while in responding to you, he’ll think I’m missing his point. That’s why I think it would be useful to peel apart your motivations and reasoning, so we don’t waste too much time arguing against a position that the person we’re talking to doesn’t even hold.
As much as I like the weird complicated discussions with trains, and feces, and dollars we get into, Im not sure theyve really been too productive to anyone's understanding given how often we subvert the point of the exercises, lol.
And yeah, if I thought that the DNC would learn from losing to one of the least electable, most despicable presidents of all time twice with their centrist conservatives old white people then I'd accept one more Trump presidency since it would at least mean that people would stop thinking "conservatism is the only way to win an election!" and maybe stop considering progressive candidates as "unelectable" despite generally favoring policy that most of America seems to poll pretty favorably.
The problem with Biden (aside from him being the most Trump-like candidate that the DNC could possibly have nominated which really feels like they not only aren't willing to learn shit, but are willing to really enjoy the benefits of a race-to-the-bottom candidate style.) in my eyes is that noone gives two shit about his policies, they almost exclusively refer to their preferences for him via the "electability" argument, and I find that to be a self fulfilling prophecy of "we can only vote for centrists because they're electible, and we'll only ever try to get elected with centrists, and if they lose we'll just pretend it didnt happen because only centrists are electible."
I mean realistically I should give up and move to another country, the odds that America ever embraces the kind of change I believe it needs are nigh, I think its more likely people just vote in their corporatist candidates ad infinitum til the populace is bled dry, but I dunno, I might as well grasp at straws in the meantime and maybe someone will eventually make the uprising we need happen.
|
On April 16 2020 07:36 Zambrah wrote:Show nested quote +On April 16 2020 07:21 ChristianS wrote:On April 16 2020 07:07 Zambrah wrote:
Is it still the moral choice if it almost guarantees that same number of people if not more people will be tied to the tracks at the next intersection? As opposed to the more people getting hit and maybe next time the people tying the slightly less people to the tracks will switch to tying significantly less people to the tracks? Is the risk worth it? See, this is part of why I don’t think you guys are actually coming from the same place. What you are making here is an argument that not pulling the lever *will* produce better outcomes in the long run. If you think so, we should talk about why. But in doing so, you’re accepting all the negative outcomes of a second Trump term as regrettable costs that will be outweighed by the benefits you think it will achieve down the line. Perhaps we can come up with a sequential game that will serve as a better analogy in subsequent elections (but since it came up, the dollar auction seems like a terrible analogy to me). But that doesn’t seem to be GH’s argument. So in responding to GH I’ll inevitably say something you’ll bristle at, thinking I’m mischaracterizing your position, while in responding to you, he’ll think I’m missing his point. That’s why I think it would be useful to peel apart your motivations and reasoning, so we don’t waste too much time arguing against a position that the person we’re talking to doesn’t even hold. As much as I like the weird complicated discussions with trains, and feces, and dollars we get into, Im not sure theyve really been too productive to anyone's understanding given how often we subvert the point of the exercises, lol. And yeah, if I thought that the DNC would learn from losing to one of the least electable, most despicable presidents of all time twice with their centrist conservatives old white people then I'd accept one more Trump presidency since it would at least mean that people would stop thinking "conservatism is the only way to win an election!" and maybe stop considering progressive candidates as "unelectable" despite generally favoring policy that most of America seems to poll pretty favorably.The problem with Biden (aside from him being the most Trump-like candidate that the DNC could possibly have nominated which really feels like they not only aren't willing to learn shit, but are willing to really enjoy the benefits of a race-to-the-bottom candidate style.) in my eyes is that noone gives two shit about his policies, they almost exclusively refer to their preferences for him via the "electability" argument, and I find that to be a self fulfilling prophecy of "we can only vote for centrists because they're electible, and we'll only ever try to get elected with centrists, and if they lose we'll just pretend it didnt happen because only centrists are electible." I mean realistically I should give up and move to another country, the odds that America ever embraces the kind of change I believe it needs are nigh, I think its more likely people just vote in their corporatist candidates ad infinitum til the populace is bled dry, but I dunno, I might as well grasp at straws in the meantime and maybe someone will eventually make the uprising we need happen.
Here’s my biggest issue with the bolded: nothing about forcing a general election loss will provide even weak evidence that more progressive candidates will have a better chance. It’ll just mean that 4 years later, once again progressives will argue “our candidate would have done better” and centrists will argue “your candidate would have done even worse.” There’s no way to evaluate the counterfactual, whether Biden wins or loses.
I should say, without accusing anyone, that there’s an obvious strategy to loudly proclaiming “I don’t know if I’ll be able to vote Biden in the general, he better make LOTS of concessions to progressives to convince me,” especially if you think Joe Biden is within earshot. But I think that sucks. One of my least favorite things about the Trump era is everyone playing weird poker mindgames with what they say vs. what they actually think. Again, I’m not saying anyone in particular is doing this, but I’d encourage everyone to act under the assumption that nobody of any importance reads TL or will ever hear about our discussions; it makes the discussion better, and honestly you’re usually more persuasive just speaking your mind than trying to play games to persuade people anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
