|
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 September 19 2020 00:31 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2020 00:24 Mohdoo wrote:On September 19 2020 00:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 19 2020 00:13 Mohdoo wrote:On September 18 2020 23:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 18 2020 23:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 18 2020 22:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 18 2020 22:24 Mohdoo wrote:On September 18 2020 21:43 GreenHorizons wrote:We can still easily vote for Biden and support women, especially when the alternative to supporting Biden is hurting women significantly more. I guess what I've been wondering lately is if Democrats have a limit to this? Would Trump's behavior actually cross it? Then what? Or if Trump is the threat many make him out to be (and I'd largely agree), are those people just going to move on to the importance of voting in 2022/2024? I'd say yes but that is in contradiction with the supposed threat Trump poses? I would vote for Trump in about 0.00004 seconds if he was running against someone I viewed as much less ethical. I don't think of myself as anything particularly special. My vote has no honor or something attached to it. I'm not proving anything to myself when I vote. I'm simply fulfilling my duty as a member of society. I'll make a fuss about better candidates and stuff first, but once the ballot arrived in my mailbox, time to fulfill my obligation. Just to be clear you're saying there is no floor for you? It's just vote for the lesser evil until the end? On September 18 2020 22:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 18 2020 21:43 GreenHorizons wrote:We can still easily vote for Biden and support women, especially when the alternative to supporting Biden is hurting women significantly more. I guess what I've been wondering lately is if Democrats have a limit to this? Would Trump's behavior actually cross it? Then what?Or if Trump is the threat many make him out to be (and I'd largely agree), are those people just going to move on to the importance of voting in 2022/2024? I'd say yes but that is in contradiction with the supposed threat Trump poses? Are you asking if Biden could potentially become so toxic (and Trump could stop being so toxic) towards women that it would end up being justifiable to vote for Trump over Biden, if all you cared about was the treatment of women? + Show Spoiler + I feel like that hypothetical scenario isn't possible to occur within the next 50 days, to be honest.
And I definitely do think that voters have tough decisions to make, especially when their party's candidate is not ideal for them. I think the primary is the best place for us to really scrutinize between similar candidates and pick our champion/representative for the general election, and the general election is the place where American voters need to get in line behind one of the two champions/representatives, because those are the only two that can win. I think primaries are where we can vote with both our head and our heart, but the general election is where we need to vote with our head. Nope. I'm basically asking if (someone as bad as they view) Trump was the lesser evil option, would that be bad enough to make people say "voting for Trump isn't good enough" or would they say "It's simple, he's the lesser of two evils so I'm voting for Trump!" Oh I see... like needing to choose between Donald Trump and Tronald Dump, where DT is the regular Trump and TD is identical to DT in every way except he also punches a puppy every day? Presumably, this hypothetical scenario can only exist in a universe that has already won each of them their respective primaries, right? So no other candidate (regardless of how great they were) was popular enough to beat out DT and TD? I'm a pretty big proponent in voting for the lesser of two evils, although that's because - based on my experiences and how I've viewed each pair of final candidates in real life - there has always been enough of a difference between the two finalists that I can accept the flaws of the "better" candidate because of the bigger picture. I'm honestly not sure how hypothetically awful (and/or indistinguishable) both candidates would need to be, for me to say "I'm not going to vote for either", because I think of that statement ("I'm not going to vote for either") as an acknowledgment that I actually don't care about - and really don't see a fundamental difference between - which person becomes president. See, Mohdoo is going to run to Canada if it gets as bad for him and the people he cares about as I'd argue it is for me and people I care about. That's important to this question because it means it isn't that he doesn't know how bad it is for others, it's that so long as it isn't like that for him, lesser evilism/the status quo is acceptable. This is a giant stretch and totally wrong. The mistake you are making is thinking you have the choice. When I write in Bernie in Trump vs Dump, nothing actually happens. Those people aren't helped at all when I write in Bernie. I've spoken at length about how my family was homeless for a while and relied on government aid for many years. If my mom had $300 less per month, it would have been GG. I can't tell the kids of today they can't eat because we need to take a stand for stuff to maybe happen in 20 years. If voting for Trump over Dump meant poor families got an extra $300/month, I'd never hesitate. Separately, that experience as a kid showed me there is really replacement for just having a bunch of money. I prioritized making a bunch of money, so now I do. Because of that, and because I have seen how vulnerable children are to the lives their parents choose for them, I could not consider myself ethical if I chose to live in the US rather than move to Canada, if things continue as they have been. I would be choosing for my child to have a worse life. Can't do that. I'm totally sincere when I say I don't know what you're saying I'm stretching/wrong about or what you mean by "The mistake you are making is thinking you have the choice." I'm not talking about writing in Bernie either, and as I clarified, for the sake of exploration people can think of it as "Drump v Hitler" if that makes sense? On September 19 2020 00:16 LegalLord wrote:On September 18 2020 23:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I'm a pretty big proponent in voting for the lesser of two evils, although that's because - based on my experiences and how I've viewed each pair of final candidates in real life - there has always been enough of a difference between the two finalists that I can accept the flaws of the "better" candidate because of the bigger picture. + Show Spoiler +Right, of course, it makes sense that we have to keep this all in context and look at the bigger picture.
So what is this bigger picture? A temporary setback to more ambitious progress, with the good candidate just not making the cut due to unfortunate circumstance? A situation where if we just swallow our misgivings for a couple years and prevent the cataclysmic danger the other side poses, we will be back on the straight-and-narrow path to progress? Lesser of two evils right now, darn it, but if we hold out throughout this it'll be better for it!
See, the problem is that this argument isn't new. Looking at the Democrats alone, this argument has been made since Bill Clinton quite frequently. Bill Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama, Hillary Clinton, each of them had a powerful "lesser of two evils" support base whenever people pointed to their records to show that they're mostly opportunists on social issues and not that much different from their Republican opponents in being corporatist shills that are slowly easing the working / middle class into more precarious economic conditions. The progression becomes bit-by-bit more distasteful, but "lesser of two evils" lives on just the same.
Is the bigger picture just that, like Mohdoo, you need a little more time to get your finances and your paperwork in place to jump ship and leave the country, and you need the "lesser evil" to stall for you a bit longer until you can do that? Or maybe just a little more time to leapfrog up into the wealthy class, where you will be well-suited to benefit, rather than suffer, from the larger trend? Because it sure as hell can't be that the larger trend is going to change course right after you get that "lesser evil" into office and stop the "irrevocable harm" that the greater evil might do. I'm jealous I didn't write that. As I understand it, you were saying: The fact that I will leave the country shows I realize the lesser evil is still evil. That shows that as long as things are fine for me, I don't mind the lesser evil. How about can you elaborate and more clearly explain your position? You aren't igne I wouldn't say "don't mind" I would say "acceptable" (as opposed to "unacceptable"). I also wouldn't say that is the entirety of what I was saying, but yes. There was more post: Show nested quote +Once lesser evilism stops satisfying his minimum threshold (where that threshold is matters less to this question than if it exists or what happens when it is finally crossed. I was curious if Trump crossed it for people though.) he will disengage the system by leaving. He acknowledges his remedy isn't a viable option for many/most people (but not what such a US means for its northern neighbors or the rest of the world, and that could be problematic on a generational timeline).
I think that describes a great deal of the ostensible left.
Just to be clear about the question, it's not about whether one can be easily identified as worse than the other. I'd be willing to grant that the "evil" that people would be voting for would be notably "less evil" than the alternative.
The clarification I made was that I was curious whether voting for a Trump figure (because the alternative was far worse) was beyond that threshold for people here.
"Once lesser evilism stops satisfying his minimum threshold (where that threshold is matters less to this question than if it exists or what happens when it is finally crossed. I was curious if Trump crossed it for people though.)"
"Where that threshold is matters"?
Trump crossed what? I don't understand this sentence at all.
If I am reading that larger point correctly, the idea is that someone jumps ship, ignoring the fact that the ship they jumped from may actually end up sinking another ship, due to no one saving that original ship. Am I right?
Essentially, if I was to move to Canada, it would be short-sighted, because I may have made an appreciable difference by remaining in the US. And in the absence of my contribution to the US, Canada ends up suffering. If I had stayed in the US, I may have fixed the ship. When I leave, I certainly can't fix the ship.
On the topic of littering and many other topics, I have already decided that, in order to live an ethical life, an individual must act in accordance with what is ideal for all people to behave like. It is never ethical to litter because of what the world would look like if everyone did. In that way, that would mean that if everyone in my position moved to Canada, it would be very bad for the US. That is a bit complex, because then we get into issues like "what if mass migration caused the US to suffer so much that they had no option but to prevent bleeding people by caving to demands", so I will ignore that part and just accept the idea that leaving the US rather than fixing it isn't ethical.
If I didn't plan to have kids and have such a rough childhood of my own, I would definitely not leave. I am already in the "winner" category in the US where I get to avoid 99% of the awful stuff about our country. What makes me want to leave is the psychological/emotional aspect of living in the US, which is well documented as directly much worse than other countries. So, I feel a lot of obligation to give my kids better than I had.
However, what if my prioritization for my kid's emotional wellbeing ends up making the US miss out on critical butterfly effects that may have made the US a better place for my kid to live? That would mean I was short-sighted and ended up making my child's life worse. Alternatively, what if my kid being raised in Canada allowed them to flourish into someone much more capable than in the US, and that person ends up helping the US more than they would have if they were raised in the US, due to their improved upbringing environment?
This ends up being a really difficult thought experiment to assign a strong confidence value to.
Separately, because of my unfortunate childhood, the thought of letting the situation get worse before it gets better sounds too unfair to the kids who have to grow up through the worse. And the butterfly effects from that worse scenario can't be ignored either. Am I correct to assume that your idea of voting/not voting with your conscience naturally assumes things do indeed get worse for vulnerable Americans before it gets better? I'd like to establish that as true before I continue.
|
You guys don't think you're mischaracterizing or judging too harshly Mohdoo's statements? One can argue that the lesser evil argument is played out but he's right- just because one strategy doesn't work doesn't necessarily mean the other does. Really, what choice does he have (or any of us) but to pick who we think is better?
Regarding the threshold for evil or acceptable vs not acceptable, has there ever been a president as divisive as DJT? He's dragged the bar down quite low. So asking Mohdoo if he's just trying to buy time to jump ship when better exists for him elsewhere is unfair just because his better means he can leave the country.
|
On September 19 2020 00:58 pajoondies wrote:
You guys don't think you're mischaracterizing or judging too harshly Mohdoo's statements?
No, not at all. He (and, to be fair, the other Democrat loyalists around here) may talk about doing what's best for the long term, but it's clear that they don't have a plan for how things actually get better. The "yes, but you don't have a plan either!" retort is little more than a tacit admission that there is no long-term plan to this "lesser of two evils" approach. Beyond, perhaps, stalling long enough to be able to jump ship.
|
On September 19 2020 00:54 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2020 00:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 19 2020 00:24 Mohdoo wrote:On September 19 2020 00:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 19 2020 00:13 Mohdoo wrote:On September 18 2020 23:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 18 2020 23:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 18 2020 22:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 18 2020 22:24 Mohdoo wrote:On September 18 2020 21:43 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I guess what I've been wondering lately is if Democrats have a limit to this? Would Trump's behavior actually cross it? Then what?
Or if Trump is the threat many make him out to be (and I'd largely agree), are those people just going to move on to the importance of voting in 2022/2024? I'd say yes but that is in contradiction with the supposed threat Trump poses? I would vote for Trump in about 0.00004 seconds if he was running against someone I viewed as much less ethical. I don't think of myself as anything particularly special. My vote has no honor or something attached to it. I'm not proving anything to myself when I vote. I'm simply fulfilling my duty as a member of society. I'll make a fuss about better candidates and stuff first, but once the ballot arrived in my mailbox, time to fulfill my obligation. Just to be clear you're saying there is no floor for you? It's just vote for the lesser evil until the end? On September 18 2020 22:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 18 2020 21:43 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
I guess what I've been wondering lately is if Democrats have a limit to this? Would Trump's behavior actually cross it? Then what?
Or if Trump is the threat many make him out to be (and I'd largely agree), are those people just going to move on to the importance of voting in 2022/2024? I'd say yes but that is in contradiction with the supposed threat Trump poses? Are you asking if Biden could potentially become so toxic (and Trump could stop being so toxic) towards women that it would end up being justifiable to vote for Trump over Biden, if all you cared about was the treatment of women? + Show Spoiler + I feel like that hypothetical scenario isn't possible to occur within the next 50 days, to be honest.
And I definitely do think that voters have tough decisions to make, especially when their party's candidate is not ideal for them. I think the primary is the best place for us to really scrutinize between similar candidates and pick our champion/representative for the general election, and the general election is the place where American voters need to get in line behind one of the two champions/representatives, because those are the only two that can win. I think primaries are where we can vote with both our head and our heart, but the general election is where we need to vote with our head. Nope. I'm basically asking if (someone as bad as they view) Trump was the lesser evil option, would that be bad enough to make people say "voting for Trump isn't good enough" or would they say "It's simple, he's the lesser of two evils so I'm voting for Trump!" Oh I see... like needing to choose between Donald Trump and Tronald Dump, where DT is the regular Trump and TD is identical to DT in every way except he also punches a puppy every day? Presumably, this hypothetical scenario can only exist in a universe that has already won each of them their respective primaries, right? So no other candidate (regardless of how great they were) was popular enough to beat out DT and TD? I'm a pretty big proponent in voting for the lesser of two evils, although that's because - based on my experiences and how I've viewed each pair of final candidates in real life - there has always been enough of a difference between the two finalists that I can accept the flaws of the "better" candidate because of the bigger picture. I'm honestly not sure how hypothetically awful (and/or indistinguishable) both candidates would need to be, for me to say "I'm not going to vote for either", because I think of that statement ("I'm not going to vote for either") as an acknowledgment that I actually don't care about - and really don't see a fundamental difference between - which person becomes president. See, Mohdoo is going to run to Canada if it gets as bad for him and the people he cares about as I'd argue it is for me and people I care about. That's important to this question because it means it isn't that he doesn't know how bad it is for others, it's that so long as it isn't like that for him, lesser evilism/the status quo is acceptable. This is a giant stretch and totally wrong. The mistake you are making is thinking you have the choice. When I write in Bernie in Trump vs Dump, nothing actually happens. Those people aren't helped at all when I write in Bernie. I've spoken at length about how my family was homeless for a while and relied on government aid for many years. If my mom had $300 less per month, it would have been GG. I can't tell the kids of today they can't eat because we need to take a stand for stuff to maybe happen in 20 years. If voting for Trump over Dump meant poor families got an extra $300/month, I'd never hesitate. Separately, that experience as a kid showed me there is really replacement for just having a bunch of money. I prioritized making a bunch of money, so now I do. Because of that, and because I have seen how vulnerable children are to the lives their parents choose for them, I could not consider myself ethical if I chose to live in the US rather than move to Canada, if things continue as they have been. I would be choosing for my child to have a worse life. Can't do that. I'm totally sincere when I say I don't know what you're saying I'm stretching/wrong about or what you mean by "The mistake you are making is thinking you have the choice." I'm not talking about writing in Bernie either, and as I clarified, for the sake of exploration people can think of it as "Drump v Hitler" if that makes sense? On September 19 2020 00:16 LegalLord wrote:On September 18 2020 23:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I'm a pretty big proponent in voting for the lesser of two evils, although that's because - based on my experiences and how I've viewed each pair of final candidates in real life - there has always been enough of a difference between the two finalists that I can accept the flaws of the "better" candidate because of the bigger picture. + Show Spoiler +Right, of course, it makes sense that we have to keep this all in context and look at the bigger picture.
So what is this bigger picture? A temporary setback to more ambitious progress, with the good candidate just not making the cut due to unfortunate circumstance? A situation where if we just swallow our misgivings for a couple years and prevent the cataclysmic danger the other side poses, we will be back on the straight-and-narrow path to progress? Lesser of two evils right now, darn it, but if we hold out throughout this it'll be better for it!
See, the problem is that this argument isn't new. Looking at the Democrats alone, this argument has been made since Bill Clinton quite frequently. Bill Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama, Hillary Clinton, each of them had a powerful "lesser of two evils" support base whenever people pointed to their records to show that they're mostly opportunists on social issues and not that much different from their Republican opponents in being corporatist shills that are slowly easing the working / middle class into more precarious economic conditions. The progression becomes bit-by-bit more distasteful, but "lesser of two evils" lives on just the same.
Is the bigger picture just that, like Mohdoo, you need a little more time to get your finances and your paperwork in place to jump ship and leave the country, and you need the "lesser evil" to stall for you a bit longer until you can do that? Or maybe just a little more time to leapfrog up into the wealthy class, where you will be well-suited to benefit, rather than suffer, from the larger trend? Because it sure as hell can't be that the larger trend is going to change course right after you get that "lesser evil" into office and stop the "irrevocable harm" that the greater evil might do. I'm jealous I didn't write that. As I understand it, you were saying: The fact that I will leave the country shows I realize the lesser evil is still evil. That shows that as long as things are fine for me, I don't mind the lesser evil. How about can you elaborate and more clearly explain your position? You aren't igne I wouldn't say "don't mind" I would say "acceptable" (as opposed to "unacceptable"). I also wouldn't say that is the entirety of what I was saying, but yes. There was more post: Once lesser evilism stops satisfying his minimum threshold (where that threshold is matters less to this question than if it exists or what happens when it is finally crossed. I was curious if Trump crossed it for people though.) he will disengage the system by leaving. He acknowledges his remedy isn't a viable option for many/most people (but not what such a US means for its northern neighbors or the rest of the world, and that could be problematic on a generational timeline).
I think that describes a great deal of the ostensible left.
Just to be clear about the question, it's not about whether one can be easily identified as worse than the other. I'd be willing to grant that the "evil" that people would be voting for would be notably "less evil" than the alternative.
The clarification I made was that I was curious whether voting for a Trump figure (because the alternative was far worse) was beyond that threshold for people here. Show nested quote +"Once lesser evilism stops satisfying his minimum threshold (where that threshold is matters less to this question than if it exists or what happens when it is finally crossed. I was curious if Trump crossed it for people though.)" "Where that threshold is matters"? Trump crossed what? I don't understand this sentence at all. If I am reading that larger point correctly, the idea is that someone jumps ship, ignoring the fact that the ship they jumped from may actually end up sinking another ship, due to no one saving that original ship. Am I right? + Show Spoiler +Essentially, if I was to move to Canada, it would be short-sighted, because I may have made an appreciable difference by remaining in the US. And in the absence of my contribution to the US, Canada ends up suffering. If I had stayed in the US, I may have fixed the ship. When I leave, I certainly can't fix the ship.
On the topic of littering and many other topics, I have already decided that, in order to live an ethical life, an individual must act in accordance with what is ideal for all people to behave like. It is never ethical to litter because of what the world would look like if everyone did. In that way, that would mean that if everyone in my position moved to Canada, it would be very bad for the US. That is a bit complex, because then we get into issues like "what if mass migration caused the US to suffer so much that they had no option but to prevent bleeding people by caving to demands", so I will ignore that part and just accept the idea that leaving the US rather than fixing it isn't ethical.
If I didn't plan to have kids and have such a rough childhood of my own, I would definitely not leave. I am already in the "winner" category in the US where I get to avoid 99% of the awful stuff about our country. What makes me want to leave is the psychological/emotional aspect of living in the US, which is well documented as directly much worse than other countries. So, I feel a lot of obligation to give my kids better than I had.
However, what if my prioritization for my kid's emotional wellbeing ends up making the US miss out on critical butterfly effects that may have made the US a better place for my kid to live? That would mean I was short-sighted and ended up making my child's life worse. Alternatively, what if my kid being raised in Canada allowed them to flourish into someone much more capable than in the US, and that person ends up helping the US more than they would have if they were raised in the US, due to their improved upbringing environment?
This ends up being a really difficult thought experiment to assign a strong confidence value to.
Separately, because of my unfortunate childhood, the thought of letting the situation get worse before it gets better sounds too unfair to the kids who have to grow up through the worse. And the butterfly effects from that worse scenario can't be ignored either. Am I correct to assume that your idea of voting/not voting with your conscience naturally assumes things do indeed get worse for vulnerable Americans before it gets better? I'd like to establish that as true before I continue .
I meant that after your initial response I was unclear whether you had a threshold (that would lead you to immigrate to Canada) or if you were just saying that having to vote for a Trump figure (because the alternative was much worse) was acceptable.
I was noting that you clarified you did have some level of "evil" that you wouldn't vote for (and would instead emigrate) in a lesser evil situation, but Trump wasn't evil enough.
I think LL gets the larger point, but I was just trying to ask people where they stood so I didn't have to infer it from their other posts (or what they said when I asked this sort of question in 2016).
|
On September 19 2020 01:14 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2020 00:58 pajoondies wrote:
You guys don't think you're mischaracterizing or judging too harshly Mohdoo's statements? No, not at all. He (and, to be fair, the other Democrat loyalists around here) may talk about doing what's best for the long term, but it's clear that they don't have a plan for how things actually get better. The "yes, but you don't have a plan either!" retort is little more than a tacit admission that there is no long-term plan to this "lesser of two evils" approach. Beyond, perhaps, stalling long enough to be able to jump ship.
So then neither of us are saying something useful?
If I say that a little bit better is better than a lot worse, and you say "but that still isn't good enough", I am not seeing what situation you are saying is better than a little bit better? Can you please elaborate?
|
How do you jump from an individual in moohdoo to "a great deal/number of the ostensible left"?
The premise itself is kinda wack, as it shifts responsibility to Biden(/insert random "left" alternative) as the main source of lowering standards.
It is the other way around, Trump being a shitbird makes just about everyone else LESS bad by definition. The one thing we can agree on is that it is an extremely undesirable outcome, though one voters are not without blame - at least when it comes to being accepting of a candidate's personal shortcomings.
I can very much recommend the book angrynomics by Lonergan/Blyth as it tangentially touches on this topic - how anger makes us tribal and how the fanatics discipline the (tribal) group and the direction it is going.
Accoding to LL voters are now required to have all the solutions AND be robbed of options if shit hits the fan? lol I don't even...
|
On September 19 2020 01:19 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2020 01:14 LegalLord wrote:On September 19 2020 00:58 pajoondies wrote:
You guys don't think you're mischaracterizing or judging too harshly Mohdoo's statements? No, not at all. He (and, to be fair, the other Democrat loyalists around here) may talk about doing what's best for the long term, but it's clear that they don't have a plan for how things actually get better. The "yes, but you don't have a plan either!" retort is little more than a tacit admission that there is no long-term plan to this "lesser of two evils" approach. Beyond, perhaps, stalling long enough to be able to jump ship. So then neither of us are saying something useful? If I say that a little bit better is better than a lot worse, and you say "but that still isn't good enough", I am not seeing what situation you are saying is better than a little bit better? Can you please elaborate?
I mean, the "you don't have a plan either" part is false, but by virtue of simply saying it you admit you don't have a plan.
See two posts ago for the more detailed response.
On September 19 2020 01:20 Doublemint wrote:
Accoding to LL voters are now required to have all the solutions AND be robbed of options if shit hits the fan? lol I don't even...
Well that's about the biggest strawman I've seen so far. Not even sure what this is referring to, honestly.
|
On September 19 2020 01:14 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2020 00:54 Mohdoo wrote:On September 19 2020 00:31 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 19 2020 00:24 Mohdoo wrote:On September 19 2020 00:18 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 19 2020 00:13 Mohdoo wrote:On September 18 2020 23:50 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 18 2020 23:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 18 2020 22:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 18 2020 22:24 Mohdoo wrote:
[quote]
I would vote for Trump in about 0.00004 seconds if he was running against someone I viewed as much less ethical.
I don't think of myself as anything particularly special. My vote has no honor or something attached to it. I'm not proving anything to myself when I vote. I'm simply fulfilling my duty as a member of society. I'll make a fuss about better candidates and stuff first, but once the ballot arrived in my mailbox, time to fulfill my obligation. Just to be clear you're saying there is no floor for you? It's just vote for the lesser evil until the end? On September 18 2020 22:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:[quote] Are you asking if Biden could potentially become so toxic (and Trump could stop being so toxic) towards women that it would end up being justifiable to vote for Trump over Biden, if all you cared about was the treatment of women? + Show Spoiler + I feel like that hypothetical scenario isn't possible to occur within the next 50 days, to be honest.
And I definitely do think that voters have tough decisions to make, especially when their party's candidate is not ideal for them. I think the primary is the best place for us to really scrutinize between similar candidates and pick our champion/representative for the general election, and the general election is the place where American voters need to get in line behind one of the two champions/representatives, because those are the only two that can win. I think primaries are where we can vote with both our head and our heart, but the general election is where we need to vote with our head. Nope. I'm basically asking if (someone as bad as they view) Trump was the lesser evil option, would that be bad enough to make people say "voting for Trump isn't good enough" or would they say "It's simple, he's the lesser of two evils so I'm voting for Trump!" Oh I see... like needing to choose between Donald Trump and Tronald Dump, where DT is the regular Trump and TD is identical to DT in every way except he also punches a puppy every day? Presumably, this hypothetical scenario can only exist in a universe that has already won each of them their respective primaries, right? So no other candidate (regardless of how great they were) was popular enough to beat out DT and TD? I'm a pretty big proponent in voting for the lesser of two evils, although that's because - based on my experiences and how I've viewed each pair of final candidates in real life - there has always been enough of a difference between the two finalists that I can accept the flaws of the "better" candidate because of the bigger picture. I'm honestly not sure how hypothetically awful (and/or indistinguishable) both candidates would need to be, for me to say "I'm not going to vote for either", because I think of that statement ("I'm not going to vote for either") as an acknowledgment that I actually don't care about - and really don't see a fundamental difference between - which person becomes president. See, Mohdoo is going to run to Canada if it gets as bad for him and the people he cares about as I'd argue it is for me and people I care about. That's important to this question because it means it isn't that he doesn't know how bad it is for others, it's that so long as it isn't like that for him, lesser evilism/the status quo is acceptable. This is a giant stretch and totally wrong. The mistake you are making is thinking you have the choice. When I write in Bernie in Trump vs Dump, nothing actually happens. Those people aren't helped at all when I write in Bernie. I've spoken at length about how my family was homeless for a while and relied on government aid for many years. If my mom had $300 less per month, it would have been GG. I can't tell the kids of today they can't eat because we need to take a stand for stuff to maybe happen in 20 years. If voting for Trump over Dump meant poor families got an extra $300/month, I'd never hesitate. Separately, that experience as a kid showed me there is really replacement for just having a bunch of money. I prioritized making a bunch of money, so now I do. Because of that, and because I have seen how vulnerable children are to the lives their parents choose for them, I could not consider myself ethical if I chose to live in the US rather than move to Canada, if things continue as they have been. I would be choosing for my child to have a worse life. Can't do that. I'm totally sincere when I say I don't know what you're saying I'm stretching/wrong about or what you mean by "The mistake you are making is thinking you have the choice." I'm not talking about writing in Bernie either, and as I clarified, for the sake of exploration people can think of it as "Drump v Hitler" if that makes sense? On September 19 2020 00:16 LegalLord wrote:On September 18 2020 23:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I'm a pretty big proponent in voting for the lesser of two evils, although that's because - based on my experiences and how I've viewed each pair of final candidates in real life - there has always been enough of a difference between the two finalists that I can accept the flaws of the "better" candidate because of the bigger picture. + Show Spoiler +Right, of course, it makes sense that we have to keep this all in context and look at the bigger picture.
So what is this bigger picture? A temporary setback to more ambitious progress, with the good candidate just not making the cut due to unfortunate circumstance? A situation where if we just swallow our misgivings for a couple years and prevent the cataclysmic danger the other side poses, we will be back on the straight-and-narrow path to progress? Lesser of two evils right now, darn it, but if we hold out throughout this it'll be better for it!
See, the problem is that this argument isn't new. Looking at the Democrats alone, this argument has been made since Bill Clinton quite frequently. Bill Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama, Hillary Clinton, each of them had a powerful "lesser of two evils" support base whenever people pointed to their records to show that they're mostly opportunists on social issues and not that much different from their Republican opponents in being corporatist shills that are slowly easing the working / middle class into more precarious economic conditions. The progression becomes bit-by-bit more distasteful, but "lesser of two evils" lives on just the same.
Is the bigger picture just that, like Mohdoo, you need a little more time to get your finances and your paperwork in place to jump ship and leave the country, and you need the "lesser evil" to stall for you a bit longer until you can do that? Or maybe just a little more time to leapfrog up into the wealthy class, where you will be well-suited to benefit, rather than suffer, from the larger trend? Because it sure as hell can't be that the larger trend is going to change course right after you get that "lesser evil" into office and stop the "irrevocable harm" that the greater evil might do. I'm jealous I didn't write that. As I understand it, you were saying: The fact that I will leave the country shows I realize the lesser evil is still evil. That shows that as long as things are fine for me, I don't mind the lesser evil. How about can you elaborate and more clearly explain your position? You aren't igne I wouldn't say "don't mind" I would say "acceptable" (as opposed to "unacceptable"). I also wouldn't say that is the entirety of what I was saying, but yes. There was more post: Once lesser evilism stops satisfying his minimum threshold (where that threshold is matters less to this question than if it exists or what happens when it is finally crossed. I was curious if Trump crossed it for people though.) he will disengage the system by leaving. He acknowledges his remedy isn't a viable option for many/most people (but not what such a US means for its northern neighbors or the rest of the world, and that could be problematic on a generational timeline).
I think that describes a great deal of the ostensible left.
Just to be clear about the question, it's not about whether one can be easily identified as worse than the other. I'd be willing to grant that the "evil" that people would be voting for would be notably "less evil" than the alternative.
The clarification I made was that I was curious whether voting for a Trump figure (because the alternative was far worse) was beyond that threshold for people here. "Once lesser evilism stops satisfying his minimum threshold (where that threshold is matters less to this question than if it exists or what happens when it is finally crossed. I was curious if Trump crossed it for people though.)" "Where that threshold is matters"? Trump crossed what? I don't understand this sentence at all. If I am reading that larger point correctly, the idea is that someone jumps ship, ignoring the fact that the ship they jumped from may actually end up sinking another ship, due to no one saving that original ship. Am I right? + Show Spoiler +Essentially, if I was to move to Canada, it would be short-sighted, because I may have made an appreciable difference by remaining in the US. And in the absence of my contribution to the US, Canada ends up suffering. If I had stayed in the US, I may have fixed the ship. When I leave, I certainly can't fix the ship.
On the topic of littering and many other topics, I have already decided that, in order to live an ethical life, an individual must act in accordance with what is ideal for all people to behave like. It is never ethical to litter because of what the world would look like if everyone did. In that way, that would mean that if everyone in my position moved to Canada, it would be very bad for the US. That is a bit complex, because then we get into issues like "what if mass migration caused the US to suffer so much that they had no option but to prevent bleeding people by caving to demands", so I will ignore that part and just accept the idea that leaving the US rather than fixing it isn't ethical.
If I didn't plan to have kids and have such a rough childhood of my own, I would definitely not leave. I am already in the "winner" category in the US where I get to avoid 99% of the awful stuff about our country. What makes me want to leave is the psychological/emotional aspect of living in the US, which is well documented as directly much worse than other countries. So, I feel a lot of obligation to give my kids better than I had.
However, what if my prioritization for my kid's emotional wellbeing ends up making the US miss out on critical butterfly effects that may have made the US a better place for my kid to live? That would mean I was short-sighted and ended up making my child's life worse. Alternatively, what if my kid being raised in Canada allowed them to flourish into someone much more capable than in the US, and that person ends up helping the US more than they would have if they were raised in the US, due to their improved upbringing environment?
This ends up being a really difficult thought experiment to assign a strong confidence value to.
Separately, because of my unfortunate childhood, the thought of letting the situation get worse before it gets better sounds too unfair to the kids who have to grow up through the worse. And the butterfly effects from that worse scenario can't be ignored either. Am I correct to assume that your idea of voting/not voting with your conscience naturally assumes things do indeed get worse for vulnerable Americans before it gets better? I'd like to establish that as true before I continue . I meant that after your initial response I was unclear whether you had a threshold (that would lead you to immigrate to Canada) or if you were just saying that having to vote for a Trump figure (because the alternative was much worse) was acceptable. I was noting that you clarified you did have some level of "evil" that you wouldn't vote for (and would instead emigrate) in a lesser evil situation, but Trump wasn't evil enough. I think LL gets the larger point, but I was just trying to ask people where they stood so I didn't have to infer it from their other posts (or what they said when I asked this sort of question in 2016).
If I couldn't leave, I'd vote for lesser until some threshold that feels ridiculous to try to theorize. But yes I am sure if one candidate said "kill all the blacks" and another said "kill all the mexicans", I'd choose to vote for neither and leave the country.
I don't think I have a clear idea as to what you are saying is the better alternative to lesser of two evils. In a non-igne way, can you clearly describe this alternative scenario?
|
On September 19 2020 01:22 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2020 01:19 Mohdoo wrote:On September 19 2020 01:14 LegalLord wrote:On September 19 2020 00:58 pajoondies wrote:
You guys don't think you're mischaracterizing or judging too harshly Mohdoo's statements? No, not at all. He (and, to be fair, the other Democrat loyalists around here) may talk about doing what's best for the long term, but it's clear that they don't have a plan for how things actually get better. The "yes, but you don't have a plan either!" retort is little more than a tacit admission that there is no long-term plan to this "lesser of two evils" approach. Beyond, perhaps, stalling long enough to be able to jump ship. So then neither of us are saying something useful? If I say that a little bit better is better than a lot worse, and you say "but that still isn't good enough", I am not seeing what situation you are saying is better than a little bit better? Can you please elaborate? I mean, the "you don't have a plan either" part is false, but by virtue of simply saying it you admit you don't have a plan. See two posts ago for the more detailed response.
My plan: Vote for Biden. Life for the poor is more than 0% better than under Trump. Observing the course of societal progress in the US over the last 100 years, we always move way too slowly, but we appear to be in a better place than 100 years ago. That trend will likely continue. Climate change will reach a point of criticality, the world will experience widespread disaster, but we as a species will ultimately prevail. And since climate change isn't a 0 or 1 situation, it will be a better situation than if Trump were president for an additional term. I think it is fair to say that a probability distribution of Biden vs Trump shows Biden would have a lesser % of extreme disaster than Trump at a fixed time.
What is your plan?
|
On September 19 2020 01:19 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2020 01:14 LegalLord wrote:On September 19 2020 00:58 pajoondies wrote:
You guys don't think you're mischaracterizing or judging too harshly Mohdoo's statements? No, not at all. He (and, to be fair, the other Democrat loyalists around here) may talk about doing what's best for the long term, but it's clear that they don't have a plan for how things actually get better. The "yes, but you don't have a plan either!" retort is little more than a tacit admission that there is no long-term plan to this "lesser of two evils" approach. Beyond, perhaps, stalling long enough to be able to jump ship. So then neither of us are saying something useful? If I say that a little bit better is better than a lot worse, and you say "but that still isn't good enough", I am not seeing what situation you are saying is better than a little bit better? Can you please elaborate?
What's critically important about the valuable insight LL is kind enough to contribute is what I've long suspected. As you admit, Biden voters don't actually have a long term plan for how things actually get better.
It also highlights that it's not that Biden voters don't know about the horrific violence and suffering under the status quo lesser evilism we've had for decades, it is that they are unwilling to risk their comfort/escape plan to stop the increasingly authoritarian tendencies and abominable conditions in the US (let alone our international war crimes) so long as the victims remain not-them/the people they care about.
|
On September 19 2020 01:28 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2020 01:19 Mohdoo wrote:On September 19 2020 01:14 LegalLord wrote:On September 19 2020 00:58 pajoondies wrote:
You guys don't think you're mischaracterizing or judging too harshly Mohdoo's statements? No, not at all. He (and, to be fair, the other Democrat loyalists around here) may talk about doing what's best for the long term, but it's clear that they don't have a plan for how things actually get better. The "yes, but you don't have a plan either!" retort is little more than a tacit admission that there is no long-term plan to this "lesser of two evils" approach. Beyond, perhaps, stalling long enough to be able to jump ship. So then neither of us are saying something useful? If I say that a little bit better is better than a lot worse, and you say "but that still isn't good enough", I am not seeing what situation you are saying is better than a little bit better? Can you please elaborate? What's critically important about the valuable insight LL is kind enough to contribute is what I've long suspected. As you admit, Biden voters don't actually have a long term plan for how things actually get better.
If I have no plan, and you have no plan, I am the bad guy? Again, in a non-igne way, a full explanation would be helpful here.
On September 19 2020 01:28 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2020 01:19 Mohdoo wrote:On September 19 2020 01:14 LegalLord wrote:On September 19 2020 00:58 pajoondies wrote:
You guys don't think you're mischaracterizing or judging too harshly Mohdoo's statements? No, not at all. He (and, to be fair, the other Democrat loyalists around here) may talk about doing what's best for the long term, but it's clear that they don't have a plan for how things actually get better. The "yes, but you don't have a plan either!" retort is little more than a tacit admission that there is no long-term plan to this "lesser of two evils" approach. Beyond, perhaps, stalling long enough to be able to jump ship. So then neither of us are saying something useful? If I say that a little bit better is better than a lot worse, and you say "but that still isn't good enough", I am not seeing what situation you are saying is better than a little bit better? Can you please elaborate? It also highlights that it's not that Biden voters don't know about the horrific violence and suffering under the status quo lesser evilism we've had for decades, it is that they are unwilling to risk their comfort/escape plan to stop the increasingly authoritarian tendencies and abominable conditions in the US so long as the victims remain not-them/the people they care about.
What am I unwilling to do? Are you saying I am unwilling to participate in your plan? What is your plan?
|
On September 19 2020 01:28 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2020 01:19 Mohdoo wrote:On September 19 2020 01:14 LegalLord wrote:On September 19 2020 00:58 pajoondies wrote:
You guys don't think you're mischaracterizing or judging too harshly Mohdoo's statements? No, not at all. He (and, to be fair, the other Democrat loyalists around here) may talk about doing what's best for the long term, but it's clear that they don't have a plan for how things actually get better. The "yes, but you don't have a plan either!" retort is little more than a tacit admission that there is no long-term plan to this "lesser of two evils" approach. Beyond, perhaps, stalling long enough to be able to jump ship. So then neither of us are saying something useful? If I say that a little bit better is better than a lot worse, and you say "but that still isn't good enough", I am not seeing what situation you are saying is better than a little bit better? Can you please elaborate? What's critically important about the valuable insight LL is kind enough to contribute is what I've long suspected. As you admit, Biden voters don't actually have a long term plan for how things actually get better. It also highlights that it's not that Biden voters don't know about the horrific violence and suffering under the status quo lesser evilism we've had for decades, it is that they are unwilling to risk their comfort/escape plan to stop the increasingly authoritarian tendencies and abominable conditions in the US (let alone our international war crimes) so long as the victims remain not-them/the people they care about. What do you want from people? like seriously, what answer are you looking for?
Many here didn't support Biden during the primary and wanted someone better. Someone better didn't win the primary.
So what is the plan? Keep voting for someone better during the Primary and hope they eventually win.
Not good enough for you? Tough, there is no better plan. Your revolution sure isn't it.
Life sucks and the world is shit, welcome to reality. But the world now is arguably the least shit is has ever been. I think that points to progress being made.
|
On September 19 2020 01:28 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2020 01:19 Mohdoo wrote:On September 19 2020 01:14 LegalLord wrote:On September 19 2020 00:58 pajoondies wrote:
You guys don't think you're mischaracterizing or judging too harshly Mohdoo's statements? No, not at all. He (and, to be fair, the other Democrat loyalists around here) may talk about doing what's best for the long term, but it's clear that they don't have a plan for how things actually get better. The "yes, but you don't have a plan either!" retort is little more than a tacit admission that there is no long-term plan to this "lesser of two evils" approach. Beyond, perhaps, stalling long enough to be able to jump ship. So then neither of us are saying something useful? If I say that a little bit better is better than a lot worse, and you say "but that still isn't good enough", I am not seeing what situation you are saying is better than a little bit better? Can you please elaborate? What's critically important about the valuable insight LL is kind enough to contribute is what I've long suspected. As you admit, Biden voters don't actually have a long term plan for how things actually get better. It also highlights that it's not that Biden voters don't know about the horrific violence and suffering under the status quo lesser evilism we've had for decades, it is that they are unwilling to risk their comfort/escape plan to stop the increasingly authoritarian tendencies and abominable conditions in the US so long as the victims remain not-them/the people they care about.
I don't know about "horrific violence and suffering under the status quo." I think you are misinterpreting Mohdoo, who has pretty clearly stated that he thinks it's better to be alive now, here, than almost any other there/then in history.
I'd also like to point out that you are rhetorically playing on specifically Trumpian features of the political landscape—"authoritarian tendencies and abominable conditions"—while denying that it matters whether anyone votes not Trump in the election. The fact that you also downplay, for example, China's much more egregious authoritarianism suggests either that you are very cynical or that you are internally split on the state of reality: Trumpism is singularly disrupting the status quo and it doesn't matter whether the GOP or the DNC are in charge.
|
On September 19 2020 01:32 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2020 01:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 19 2020 01:19 Mohdoo wrote:On September 19 2020 01:14 LegalLord wrote:On September 19 2020 00:58 pajoondies wrote:
You guys don't think you're mischaracterizing or judging too harshly Mohdoo's statements? No, not at all. He (and, to be fair, the other Democrat loyalists around here) may talk about doing what's best for the long term, but it's clear that they don't have a plan for how things actually get better. The "yes, but you don't have a plan either!" retort is little more than a tacit admission that there is no long-term plan to this "lesser of two evils" approach. Beyond, perhaps, stalling long enough to be able to jump ship. So then neither of us are saying something useful? If I say that a little bit better is better than a lot worse, and you say "but that still isn't good enough", I am not seeing what situation you are saying is better than a little bit better? Can you please elaborate? What's critically important about the valuable insight LL is kind enough to contribute is what I've long suspected. As you admit, Biden voters don't actually have a long term plan for how things actually get better. If I have no plan, and you have no plan, I am the bad guy? Again, in a non-igne way, a full explanation would be helpful here. Show nested quote +On September 19 2020 01:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 19 2020 01:19 Mohdoo wrote:On September 19 2020 01:14 LegalLord wrote:On September 19 2020 00:58 pajoondies wrote:
You guys don't think you're mischaracterizing or judging too harshly Mohdoo's statements? No, not at all. He (and, to be fair, the other Democrat loyalists around here) may talk about doing what's best for the long term, but it's clear that they don't have a plan for how things actually get better. The "yes, but you don't have a plan either!" retort is little more than a tacit admission that there is no long-term plan to this "lesser of two evils" approach. Beyond, perhaps, stalling long enough to be able to jump ship. So then neither of us are saying something useful? If I say that a little bit better is better than a lot worse, and you say "but that still isn't good enough", I am not seeing what situation you are saying is better than a little bit better? Can you please elaborate? It also highlights that it's not that Biden voters don't know about the horrific violence and suffering under the status quo lesser evilism we've had for decades, it is that they are unwilling to risk their comfort/escape plan to stop the increasingly authoritarian tendencies and abominable conditions in the US so long as the victims remain not-them/the people they care about. What am I unwilling to do? Are you saying I am unwilling to participate in your plan? What is your plan?
I'm saying you have your plan/hope/faith for how things eventually recover from catastrophe and you've hopefully avoided/mitigated it for you and yours. As I told Kwark long ago when he reconciled this I get it, and while I flicked him some shit for it, I respect him for at least reconciling it (even if it ultimately sucks for me).
As for a better plan, I mentioned a bit of an outline before but I'm not trying to compare plans at this stage. I was just trying to identify if people had a threshold to abandon lesser evilsim and whether a Trump figure being the "lesser evil" option was beyond it or not.
|
On September 18 2020 23:56 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2020 23:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 18 2020 22:51 Wegandi wrote:On September 18 2020 22:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 18 2020 22:28 Wegandi wrote:
Can we get past calling someone anti-woman for holding a different view on abortion?
1. No. 2. Who was calling someone anti-woman just because of their view on abortion? If you're referring to anyone talking about Trump, I'm sure the inclusion of raping/assaulting/harassing countless women, and making completely inappropriate and misogynistic comments are included in his anti-woman assessment, rather than him only being against them having the right to bodily autonomy. I could care less about Trump. You called folks anti-woman for holding different view on abortion and you think Republicans are anti-suffrage. That's hilarious. You live in a bubble that you hurl at the other side about echo chambers and living in fantasy. I'm sure you said really nice things about Palin, Kristi Noem, Nikki Haley, Margaret Thatcher, Alveda King, etc. I'm sure you're all gung-ho on Ayn Rand, Rose Wilder Lane, Jo Jorgenson, Isabel Paterson, Theodora Nathan, Lisa Kennedy, Mary Ruwart, etc. My point is both sides say some nasty shit about the other sides women. Vile. Can step off that high-horse at anytime. Democrats didn't make fun of Palin for being a woman. Everyone made fun of Palin because she was a moron. Republicans regularly made fun of Clinton for many things, including-and-especially for being a woman. The number of times I heard "She can't be president or else she'll bomb a country once a month on her period" or "Hillary is a weak woman who can't even please her man, so how can she lead a country" was atrocious. Sexist and atrocious. The fact that there exist some Republicans who are women does not mean that the party is pro-woman. And, again, it's important to establish why someone disagrees with someone else. If I have an issue with Ayn Rand, or if I support something AOC says, it's not necessarily due to their sex. You're really misremembering Palin. From a book on the way she was attacked, just picking up some of the sex-involved insults: "She has been called a ‘freak show,’ a ‘joke,’ an ‘extreme liability,’ a ‘turncoat b*tch,’ an ‘insult,’ a ‘fire-breather,’ ‘xenophobic,’ a ‘sitcom of a vice-presidential choice,’ a ‘disaster movie,’ a ‘shallow’ person, ‘chirpy,’ a ‘provincial,’ a ‘disgrace to women’ who was ‘as fake as they come,’ a ‘nauseating,’ ‘cocky wacko,’ a ‘jack in the box,’ ‘Napoleon in bunny boots,’ ‘extreme,’ ‘radical,’ a ‘vessel,’ a ‘farce,’ ‘Bush in drag,’ ‘not very bright,’ ‘utterly unqualified,’ a ‘bimbo,’ ‘Danielle Quayle,’ the ‘new spokesperson for bellicosity and confrontation,’ a ‘fatal cancer,’ ‘like a really bad Disney movie,’ ‘laughable,’ an ‘odd combination of Chauncey Gardiner from Being There and Marge from Fargo,’ ‘dangerous,’ a ‘bully,’ the ‘biggest demagogue in America,’ the ‘Paleolithic Princess of Parsimonious Patriotism,’ the ‘anti-Wonder Woman,’ ‘judgmental’… ‘dictatorial’ with a ‘superior religious self-righteousness,’ a ‘racist’ who was ‘absurd,’ ‘scary,’ and a ‘token,’ a ‘bantamweight cheerleader,’ an ‘airhead,’ an ‘idiot,’ a ‘librarian in a porn film,’ a ‘Jesus freak,’ a ‘man with a vagina’… a ‘Drama Queen,’ a ‘Republican blow-up doll’ who ‘ideologically’ is ‘their hardcore pornographic centerfold spread,’ an ‘opportunistic anti-female,’ a ‘true Stepford candidate, a cyborg,’ a ‘quitter,’ and—this list is by no means exhaustive—a ‘bonbon.’"
That's fair. I definitely disagree with any of those sexist remarks that were made at her expense. Referring to Palin as a man with a vagina or a Republican blow-up doll, for example, is not okay, and people shouldn't be using misogynistic language.
On September 19 2020 00:07 pajoondies wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2020 23:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 18 2020 22:45 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 18 2020 22:24 Mohdoo wrote:On September 18 2020 21:43 GreenHorizons wrote:We can still easily vote for Biden and support women, especially when the alternative to supporting Biden is hurting women significantly more. I guess what I've been wondering lately is if Democrats have a limit to this? Would Trump's behavior actually cross it? Then what? Or if Trump is the threat many make him out to be (and I'd largely agree), are those people just going to move on to the importance of voting in 2022/2024? I'd say yes but that is in contradiction with the supposed threat Trump poses? I would vote for Trump in about 0.00004 seconds if he was running against someone I viewed as much less ethical. I don't think of myself as anything particularly special. My vote has no honor or something attached to it. I'm not proving anything to myself when I vote. I'm simply fulfilling my duty as a member of society. I'll make a fuss about better candidates and stuff first, but once the ballot arrived in my mailbox, time to fulfill my obligation. Just to be clear you're saying there is no floor for you? It's just vote for the lesser evil until the end? On September 18 2020 22:28 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 18 2020 21:43 GreenHorizons wrote:We can still easily vote for Biden and support women, especially when the alternative to supporting Biden is hurting women significantly more. I guess what I've been wondering lately is if Democrats have a limit to this? Would Trump's behavior actually cross it? Then what?Or if Trump is the threat many make him out to be (and I'd largely agree), are those people just going to move on to the importance of voting in 2022/2024? I'd say yes but that is in contradiction with the supposed threat Trump poses? Are you asking if Biden could potentially become so toxic (and Trump could stop being so toxic) towards women that it would end up being justifiable to vote for Trump over Biden, if all you cared about was the treatment of women? + Show Spoiler + I feel like that hypothetical scenario isn't possible to occur within the next 50 days, to be honest.
And I definitely do think that voters have tough decisions to make, especially when their party's candidate is not ideal for them. I think the primary is the best place for us to really scrutinize between similar candidates and pick our champion/representative for the general election, and the general election is the place where American voters need to get in line behind one of the two champions/representatives, because those are the only two that can win. I think primaries are where we can vote with both our head and our heart, but the general election is where we need to vote with our head. Nope. I'm basically asking if (someone as bad as they view) Trump was the lesser evil option, would that be bad enough to make people say "voting for Trump isn't good enough" or would they say "It's simple, he's the lesser of two evils so I'm voting for Trump!" Oh I see... like needing to choose between Donald Trump and Tronald Dump, where DT is the regular Trump and TD is identical to DT in every way except he also punches a puppy every day? Presumably, this hypothetical scenario can only exist in a universe that has already won each of them their respective primaries, right? So no other candidate (regardless of how great they were) was popular enough to beat out DT and TD? I'm a pretty big proponent in voting for the lesser of two evils, although that's because - based on my experiences and how I've viewed each pair of final candidates in real life - there has always been enough of a difference between the two finalists that I can accept the flaws of the "better" candidate because of the bigger picture. I'm honestly not sure how hypothetically awful (and/or indistinguishable) both candidates would need to be, for me to say "I'm not going to vote for either", because I think of that statement ("I'm not going to vote for either") as an acknowledgment that I actually don't care about - and really don't see a fundamental difference between - which person becomes president. I agree with your stance and particularly hate that hypothetical because what we have is a Democrat party that has sects (AOC/Bernie and more centrist like Biden) that work together to find a middle ground while the GOP seems to have people who support Trump no matter what, and a very small minority who support Trump and also Qanon? Then there are those who lean left or right but don't sit on party lines and argue both candidates are lackluster and so don't vote. If you're waiting for perfect, it's not coming and never will. You don't wait for the perfect job, house, partner, and so why apply shirk your civic duty in the name of morality?
I agree with your assertion that it's impractical and unrealistic to wait for the perfect candidate. They rarely exist, and of course, if everyone had unreasonably high standards for a politician, then no one would ever vote for anyone, and we'd end up with even fewer people voting (and deciding the elections).
On September 19 2020 00:16 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 18 2020 23:30 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:
I'm a pretty big proponent in voting for the lesser of two evils, although that's because - based on my experiences and how I've viewed each pair of final candidates in real life - there has always been enough of a difference between the two finalists that I can accept the flaws of the "better" candidate because of the bigger picture. Right, of course, it makes sense that we have to keep this all in context and look at the bigger picture. So what is this bigger picture? A temporary setback to more ambitious progress, with the good candidate just not making the cut due to unfortunate circumstance? A situation where if we just swallow our misgivings for a couple years and prevent the cataclysmic danger the other side poses, we will be back on the straight-and-narrow path to progress? Lesser of two evils right now, darn it, but if we hold out throughout this it'll be better for it! See, the problem is that this argument isn't new. Looking at the Democrats alone, this argument has been made since Bill Clinton quite frequently. Bill Clinton, Gore, Kerry, Obama, Hillary Clinton, each of them had a powerful "lesser of two evils" support base whenever people pointed to their records to show that they're mostly opportunists on social issues and not that much different from their Republican opponents in being corporatist shills that are slowly easing the working / middle class into more precarious economic conditions. The progression becomes bit-by-bit more distasteful, but "lesser of two evils" lives on just the same. Is the bigger picture just that, like Mohdoo, you need a little more time to get your finances and your paperwork in place to jump ship and leave the country, and you need the "lesser evil" to stall for you a bit longer until you can do that? Or maybe just a little more time to leapfrog up into the wealthy class, where you will be well-suited to benefit, rather than suffer, from the larger trend? Because it sure as hell can't be that the larger trend is going to change course right after you get that "lesser evil" into office and stop the "irrevocable harm" that the greater evil might do.
For me, the bigger picture is any sort of movement in a positive direction for the platforms I think are important. While I'd like the magnitude of those vectors to be large, I'd accept even the slightest nudges forwards when up against politicians who wouldn't move the needle at all (or move it backwards). I think that's generally the "bigger picture" for most people when picking a candidate, too.
|
You guys realize opportunity cost is a thing ? Between losing 5dollars and 12dollars, there's a cost of 7 dollars. Same apply to biden/trump.
Also saying nobody has a plan for climate change is quite wrong. France divided by 2 their emissions per capita by increasing the nuclear power. Clean energy lads.
|
Does anyone here think that a serious climate change plan, as GH demands, would be less authoritarian? What if democracy decides against it? It's for the greater good. Do we need a paternalistic (white) (western) (industrialized) (educated) authoritarianism?
|
On September 19 2020 01:41 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2020 01:32 Mohdoo wrote:On September 19 2020 01:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 19 2020 01:19 Mohdoo wrote:On September 19 2020 01:14 LegalLord wrote:On September 19 2020 00:58 pajoondies wrote:
You guys don't think you're mischaracterizing or judging too harshly Mohdoo's statements? No, not at all. He (and, to be fair, the other Democrat loyalists around here) may talk about doing what's best for the long term, but it's clear that they don't have a plan for how things actually get better. The "yes, but you don't have a plan either!" retort is little more than a tacit admission that there is no long-term plan to this "lesser of two evils" approach. Beyond, perhaps, stalling long enough to be able to jump ship. So then neither of us are saying something useful? If I say that a little bit better is better than a lot worse, and you say "but that still isn't good enough", I am not seeing what situation you are saying is better than a little bit better? Can you please elaborate? What's critically important about the valuable insight LL is kind enough to contribute is what I've long suspected. As you admit, Biden voters don't actually have a long term plan for how things actually get better. If I have no plan, and you have no plan, I am the bad guy? Again, in a non-igne way, a full explanation would be helpful here. On September 19 2020 01:28 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 19 2020 01:19 Mohdoo wrote:On September 19 2020 01:14 LegalLord wrote:On September 19 2020 00:58 pajoondies wrote:
You guys don't think you're mischaracterizing or judging too harshly Mohdoo's statements? No, not at all. He (and, to be fair, the other Democrat loyalists around here) may talk about doing what's best for the long term, but it's clear that they don't have a plan for how things actually get better. The "yes, but you don't have a plan either!" retort is little more than a tacit admission that there is no long-term plan to this "lesser of two evils" approach. Beyond, perhaps, stalling long enough to be able to jump ship. So then neither of us are saying something useful? If I say that a little bit better is better than a lot worse, and you say "but that still isn't good enough", I am not seeing what situation you are saying is better than a little bit better? Can you please elaborate? It also highlights that it's not that Biden voters don't know about the horrific violence and suffering under the status quo lesser evilism we've had for decades, it is that they are unwilling to risk their comfort/escape plan to stop the increasingly authoritarian tendencies and abominable conditions in the US so long as the victims remain not-them/the people they care about. What am I unwilling to do? Are you saying I am unwilling to participate in your plan? What is your plan? I'm saying you have your plan/hope/faith for how things eventually recover from catastrophe and you've hopefully avoided/mitigated it for you and yours. As I told Kwark long ago when he reconciled this I get it, and while I flicked him some shit for it, I respect him for at least reconciling it (even if it ultimately sucks for me). As for a better plan, I mentioned a bit of an outline before but I'm not trying to compare plans at this stage. I was just trying to identify if people had a threshold to abandon lesser evilsim and whether a Trump figure being the "lesser evil" option was beyond it or not.
I just read through that post. My impression is that you know the gist of the direction you believe in, but you have zero framework to judge someone for having no plan. To me, that means there is no room for critique. For all you know, my plan goes 100x better than yours, because yours doesn't exist yet. I am sure you intend to work out the details, but for now, there appears to be a big blank spot. In that case, I would say I am clearly the one with a better plan right now.
I think that when you are making such direct criticisms of actual real-world decision making and the direction of someone's life choices, it is appropriate to have an underlying framework to compare against. I can see why you like conducting discussions in this sort of evasive manner. It lets you help people realize there are issues with their plans without making it clear there doesn't exist anything better.
EDIT: I also want to be clear. Does your plan mean things get worse for the poor before they get better? Do you have a rough estimate as to how long life for poor children would be worse before better?
|
Vote Trump if you’re in a swing state, and get your pick of radical left-wing Bernie-type in 2024. The last gasp of the center-left within the Democratic Party is Biden, and his defeat would mean a defeat of his style of establishment politics.
I’m a little closer to GH, just assuming for the sake of argument that all the climate catastrophe and societal collapse is in the near term. Both choices suck if that’s your perspective. If you think the Democratic Party can be saved instead of destroyed, Trump should be your voting choice. If the Democratic Party is too wedded to big business, the status quo, and existing systems of power and privilege, for that to happen, then you can’t really vote Biden or Trump.
|
On September 19 2020 01:25 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2020 01:22 LegalLord wrote:On September 19 2020 01:19 Mohdoo wrote:On September 19 2020 01:14 LegalLord wrote:On September 19 2020 00:58 pajoondies wrote:
You guys don't think you're mischaracterizing or judging too harshly Mohdoo's statements? No, not at all. He (and, to be fair, the other Democrat loyalists around here) may talk about doing what's best for the long term, but it's clear that they don't have a plan for how things actually get better. The "yes, but you don't have a plan either!" retort is little more than a tacit admission that there is no long-term plan to this "lesser of two evils" approach. Beyond, perhaps, stalling long enough to be able to jump ship. So then neither of us are saying something useful? If I say that a little bit better is better than a lot worse, and you say "but that still isn't good enough", I am not seeing what situation you are saying is better than a little bit better? Can you please elaborate? I mean, the "you don't have a plan either" part is false, but by virtue of simply saying it you admit you don't have a plan. See two posts ago for the more detailed response. My plan: Vote for Biden. Life for the poor is more than 0% better than under Trump. Observing the course of societal progress in the US over the last 100 years, we always move way too slowly, but we appear to be in a better place than 100 years ago. That trend will likely continue. Climate change will reach a point of criticality, the world will experience widespread disaster, but we as a species will ultimately prevail. And since climate change isn't a 0 or 1 situation, it will be a better situation than if Trump were president for an additional term. I think it is fair to say that a probability distribution of Biden vs Trump shows Biden would have a lesser % of extreme disaster than Trump at a fixed time. What is your plan?
Personal plan? Vote for a non-Biden, non-Trump candidate in a vote that, though implicitly providing Trump more support relative to the more straightforward "vote Biden" approach, offers a counter to the lesser evilism being put forward. Hopefully that'd make a difference, but in the likely chance it fails, both scrambling to be on the winning end of the increasing class divide and taking the family out of country are both excellent alternatives. Were I to have deeper roots to hold onto, "stay and fight" would be a much more sensible approach.
Your stated "plan" is little more than a variation on what you were accused of: lesser evilism as a stall tactic with no long-term plan. The idea is that things will improve eventually, because they have improved in the past, and the trend has to stay the same for some reason. But for that to happen, you'd need nothing less than the 50-year period of unprecedented growth that the US had because of circumstances far more favorable than exist today. Things have clearly been trending elsewhere for the past thirty years, and they weren't all that great back in the Great Depression (and decade preceding), and most of history before then has been quite Malthusian (and may very well be so again in light of the dangers posed by the global warming threat).
In case the barely-subtle allusions weren't clear, let me just say it outright: to effect real change under these adverse circumstances, you need revolution; by ballot box if possible, by guillotine if necessary. If you think lesser evilism is going to move you forward, you are lying to yourself. You should own it one way or the other - either you accept the need for a revolutionary option that will cause things to get worse before they have a chance of getting better, or you accept that you're not willing to do that and that the slow decline is something you're willing to take to its logical conclusion in the long term. In different words, it very much seems like GH is saying the same thing I am on this one.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
