|
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 |
United Kingdom13774 Posts
On September 19 2020 01:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +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. 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. What are those platforms? You might win with Biden on social issues, albeit in that very reluctant sort of "movement with public opinion" way. You're absolutely going to lose on the economic / quality-of-life issues since he's clearly as much of a corporatist as any other Democrat/Republican out there. I suspect that for most people, the latter would be much more important in the long term, and fixing the little things isn't really much help when in "the bigger picture" you're on a sinking ship.
|
On September 19 2020 01:57 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2020 01:25 Mohdoo wrote: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.
It sounds like we agree on what happens if breaking the lesser of two evils dynamic doesn't work. It sounds like we just disagree on the % chance of effectiveness of the non-Biden vote. But I can understand that if you do think that, it makes sense. I don't, but whatever.
On September 19 2020 01:57 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2020 01:25 Mohdoo wrote: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? 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).
For the sake of discussing pros and cons of various plans, I think all we need is comparable timeframes to have a worthwhile discussion. I don't owe you a longer plan than you give me when we are discussing the merits of plans. But I do enjoy those thought experiments and I am happy to play. It just seems like you aren't actually doing that yourself.
On September 19 2020 01:57 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2020 01:25 Mohdoo wrote: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? 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.
For whatever its worth, I think the kind of revolution that we agree is necessary is more likely to happen after a Biden presidency than a Trump presidency. When you say things need to get worse first, I think it is important to preface that with a confidence % in what comes next. When we are saying a bunch of kids need to go hungry in order to destroy billionaires, we need to have confidence those kids are a worthwhile sacrifice. I would be grumpy if I starved as a kid and then things only got worse after that.
I think the worldview being put forth by Trump doesn't allow for the poor to unite because he turns the poor against each other. I think Trump's continued presidency would drastically delay the revolution that I want to see happen. So while we disagree on how to get there, we do seem to agree on what is necessary for the world to improve. I think Biden gets us there faster, you don't, that's fine.
|
The issue with revolutions, is that they rarely end up doing what you want them to do. You're likely to makes things worse.
|
On September 19 2020 02:23 Erasme wrote: The issue with revolutions, is that they rarely end up doing what you want them to do. You're likely to makes things worse.
American revolution? We shouldn't let the possibility of failure discourage ambition. As I pointed out, you also need to not be reckless. Blind bravery isn't bravery, it is ignorance. Revolutions can go poorly, or not and I don't think it makes sense to assume a revolution will go poorly.
|
On September 19 2020 02:26 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2020 02:23 Erasme wrote: The issue with revolutions, is that they rarely end up doing what you want them to do. You're likely to makes things worse. American revolution? We shouldn't let the possibility of failure discourage ambition. As I pointed out, you also need to not be reckless. Blind bravery isn't bravery, it is ignorance. Revolutions can go poorly, or not and I don't think it makes sense to say revolution is always bad. That's one. I can't think of one in the past 50years.
|
On September 19 2020 01:57 LegalLord wrote:+ Show Spoiler +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.
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. That's the mythical sense of time But yup. This is what I'm talking about that this isn't even a new argument, MLK jr was sick of hearing it more than 50 years ago.
Another MLK passage on that
In order to develop massive action programs, we’ve got to get rid of one or two myths that are quite prevalent and that we hear a great deal around various communities. One is what I often speak of as the myth of time. I’m sure that you’ve heard this. This is the argument that only time can solve the problem... just be nice and just be patient and wait 100 or 200 years and the problem will work itself out. I think there is an answer to that myth. That is that time is neutral, it can be used either constructively or destructively. And I’m absolutely convinced that in so many instances the forces of ill will in our nation, the extreme rightists of our nation have used time much more effectively than the forces of good will. And it may well be that we will have to repent in this generation, not merely for the vitriolic words and the violent actions of the bad people... but for the appalling silence and indifference of the good people who sit around and say wait on time. Somewhere we must come to see that human progress never rolls in on the wheels of inevitability. It comes through the tireless efforts and the persistent work of dedicated individuals
www.iwu.edu
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).
While I'm personally not willing to wait 50 more years for comparable so-called "progress" on race, I get why white people (or people in proximity to white club) would be reluctantly accepting of it. The severe whitewashing of history and civil rights movements among the reasons for many.
What is genuinely confounding to me, is that intellectually they understand that doesn't work for climate, but yet here we are.
|
On September 19 2020 02:02 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2020 01:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: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. 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. What are those platforms? You might win with Biden on social issues, albeit in that very reluctant sort of "movement with public opinion" way. You're absolutely going to lose on the economic / quality-of-life issues since he's clearly as much of a corporatist as any other Democrat/Republican out there. I suspect that for most people, the latter would be much more important in the long term, and fixing the little things isn't really much help when in "the bigger picture" you're on a sinking ship.
Everyone has different platforms and positions and rankings of importance for them, absolutely. Here are some of mine: -On the topic of healthcare, I definitely prefer Biden over Trump. (As I noted earlier, I would have preferred an even more progressive healthcare plan than what Biden's is, but I'll take Biden's rhetoric of "building on Obamacare" to Trump's rhetoric of "you sick? you die." ten out of ten times.) -On the topic of education, I far prefer Biden to Trump. -Same with promoting trust of scientific (e.g., climate change) and medical communities (e.g., coronavirus). -Same with promoting foreign relationships with allies. -Same with issues surrounding women's rights, minorities' rights, acceptance and not discrimination, etc. -I don't think the economic issue is a "loss" for Biden, either, given how Trump has literally caused the obliteration of our economy and made unemployment skyrocket (yes, causal relationship) with his purposeful inaction to prepare for coronavirus. We're way past slight tax increases/decreases; we're talking about families losing their jobs and losing their lives because of our current president. Over 202,000 dead and millions more sick. That's not good for the economy. -I'm not sure what you mean by quality-of-life, but I consider having healthcare, having a good education, having a better climate, and having a job to be relevant, so I think Trump loses on all those too.
But, again, certainly other people have different priorities.
|
United Kingdom13774 Posts
On September 19 2020 02:08 Mohdoo wrote: It sounds like we agree on what happens if breaking the lesser of two evils dynamic doesn't work. It sounds like we just disagree on the % chance of effectiveness of the non-Biden vote. But I can understand that if you do think that, it makes sense. I don't, but whatever. It's a risk, obviously. Either accept a slower pace of things getting worse (but worse they will get), or do something that will clearly make things worse with some possibility that it'll make things better in the longer term. When things get bad enough, there is no doubt that the latter is the right option because there's not enough downside left to matter.
On September 19 2020 02:08 Mohdoo wrote: For the sake of discussing pros and cons of various plans, I think all we need is comparable timeframes to have a worthwhile discussion. I don't owe you a longer plan than you give me when we are discussing the merits of plans. But I do enjoy those thought experiments and I am happy to play. It just seems like you aren't actually doing that yourself. Hey, if you start making arguments from "the bigger picture" then you sure as hell better have a "bigger picture" of what is supposed to happen.
In fairness, DPB was the one that made the argument originally; you just went along for the ride because of your "moving to Canada" comment. And perhaps you should have actually stuck to that, because "I'm going to look out for my own" is at least an honest plan. More so than, "I'll move to Canada, maybe, but I really don't wanna and hope the problem just eventually fixes itself." Because the latter really isn't at all a "bigger picture" view, but rather short-termism.
On September 19 2020 02:08 Mohdoo wrote: I think the worldview being put forth by Trump doesn't allow for the poor to unite because he turns the poor against each other. I think Trump's continued presidency would drastically delay the revolution that I want to see happen. So while we disagree on how to get there, we do seem to agree on what is necessary for the world to improve. I think Biden gets us there faster, you don't, that's fine. Revolutionary sentiment tends to come out of a perception of decline, of which there is plenty, and is always messy in terms of having many factions. In the grand scheme of things, both Biden and Trump are "the enemy" here. Alongside the rest of the political mainstream and their wealthy benefactors, of course. The sentiment against that broad group is pretty widespread across both parties already.
|
On September 19 2020 01:57 LegalLord wrote: 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.
Technology, like Plato's pharmakon, is both poison and antidote. It seems profoundly ahistorical to me recall the figure of 1789 as if we didn't have the nuclear bomb, terrifying biological weapons, and a fragile supply chain for the provision of basic human needs. Our capacity for doing has outpaced our capacity for feeling and imagining. The simple fact of the bomb's existence led to its use. Napoleon never posed an existential threat, but a new Napoleon might.
We might conceive of society as a mechanistic alterity that we've established outside of our more limited interpersonal relations. Our social institutions channel disputes into negotiations and block violence, the power of which is linked to our more general capacity for doing. Although society presents itself as invincible, the cracks that appear in crises show that it is a pure facade, having no real substance that would guarantee its independence from us.
The compounding crises of the 21st century put us in a double bind. Do nothing and catastrophe almost surely awaits. Tear down the facade in order to unleash an unconstrained capacity for doing and catastrophe almost surely awaits. A commitment to democracy might be the only way to avoid Scylla and Charybdis. But that presents a whole series of issues that revolve around what representation is and what representation means.
One thing about MLK was that he spoke to potential white allies from the position of a universal church in Christ. He occupied the position of universality. It is hard for me to see how democracy works without that idea.
"I have heard numerous religious leaders of the South call upon their worshippers to comply with a desegregation decision because it is the law, but I have longed to hear white ministers say follow this decree because integration is morally right and the Negro is your brother. In the midst of blatant injustices inflicted upon the Negro, I have watched white churches stand on the sideline and merely mouth pious irrelevancies and sanctimonious trivialities. In the midst of a mighty struggle to rid our nation of racial and economic injustice, I have heard so many ministers say, 'Those are social issues with which the Gospel has no real concern,' and I have watched so many churches commit themselves to a completely otherworldly religion which made a strange distinction between body and soul, the sacred and the secular. […] Maybe again I have been too optimistic. Is organized religion too inextricably bound to the status quo to save our nation and the world? Maybe I must turn my faith to the inner spiritual Church, the church within the Church, as the true ecclesia and the hope of the world. […] If the inexpressible cruelties of slavery could not stop us, the opposition we now face will surely fail. We will win our freedom because the sacred heritage of our nation and the eternal will of God are embodied in our echoing demands."
|
On September 19 2020 02:41 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2020 02:08 Mohdoo wrote: It sounds like we agree on what happens if breaking the lesser of two evils dynamic doesn't work. It sounds like we just disagree on the % chance of effectiveness of the non-Biden vote. But I can understand that if you do think that, it makes sense. I don't, but whatever. It's a risk, obviously. Either accept a slower pace of things getting worse (but worse they will get), or do something that will clearly make things worse with some possibility that it'll make things better in the longer term. When things get bad enough, there is no doubt that the latter is the right option because there's not enough downside left to matter. Show nested quote +On September 19 2020 02:08 Mohdoo wrote: For the sake of discussing pros and cons of various plans, I think all we need is comparable timeframes to have a worthwhile discussion. I don't owe you a longer plan than you give me when we are discussing the merits of plans. But I do enjoy those thought experiments and I am happy to play. It just seems like you aren't actually doing that yourself. Hey, if you start making arguments from "the bigger picture" then you sure as hell better have a "bigger picture" of what is supposed to happen. In fairness, DPB was the one that made the argument originally; you just went along for the ride because of your "moving to Canada" comment. And perhaps you should have actually stuck to that, because "I'm going to look out for my own" is at least an honest plan. More so than, "I'll move to Canada, maybe, but I really don't wanna and hope the problem just eventually fixes itself." Because the latter really isn't at all a "bigger picture" view, but rather short-termism. Show nested quote +On September 19 2020 02:08 Mohdoo wrote: I think the worldview being put forth by Trump doesn't allow for the poor to unite because he turns the poor against each other. I think Trump's continued presidency would drastically delay the revolution that I want to see happen. So while we disagree on how to get there, we do seem to agree on what is necessary for the world to improve. I think Biden gets us there faster, you don't, that's fine. Revolutionary sentiment tends to come out of a perception of decline, of which there is plenty, and is always messy in terms of having many factions. In the grand scheme of things, both Biden and Trump are "the enemy" here. Alongside the rest of the political mainstream and their wealthy benefactors, of course. The sentiment against that broad group is pretty widespread across both parties already.
I'm not sure what you mean by better off. I don't want to move to Canada, because I like my house, and Oregon is actually pretty damn insulated from Trump stuff...until recently, lol. but if I decide it is what is necessary for my future children, I'll do it. Do you like moving? No one does xD
My impression is that perception of decline is what helped Trump get elected because he provided an alternative vision for why things were declining. Trump says don't blame the billionaires, blame these guys instead. Neither of us are remotely qualified to speak on this, but my impression would be that this alternate view of "why the world sucks" ultimately ends up significantly worsening the cohesion that is needed of the poor. When half of the poor are mad at other poor people, rather than billionaires, my assumption would be that it ends up harder to seize assets from billionaires. But I am by no means a scholar on that, so that's just my perception from what I have read. It feels like Trump's ideology provides an alternate group to blame for angry poor people.
|
This is almost funny from the outside. Seeing GH agree with the whole conservative block of the forum about how shitty the Democrats are for the country and then coming to the conclusion, that a revolution is necessary.
As if revolutions are always won and never messy. The fact that there is always an opposition to revolution that is also part of your population does not phase anyone. I guess if the disgruntled left starts killing Democratic leaders for healthcare and social security, the right wing militias will just peacefully wait their basements until the other side knows what they want to stand for politically :D Revolutions might be useful, civil wars are not. How did your last one go? Everything was su much better afterwards, right? Slaves were freed and immediately completely equal with no more racism ever.
Cheering for conditions that finally allow for violent upheavel of the system is morally inferior to people making choices that improve the system, even if not as fast as you would hope. The choice is not between Trump and Drump, it is between Biden and Trump and it is clearly visible from theo outside which candidate would move your country into which direction.
|
United Kingdom13774 Posts
On September 19 2020 02:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2020 02:02 LegalLord wrote:On September 19 2020 01:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: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. 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. What are those platforms? You might win with Biden on social issues, albeit in that very reluctant sort of "movement with public opinion" way. You're absolutely going to lose on the economic / quality-of-life issues since he's clearly as much of a corporatist as any other Democrat/Republican out there. I suspect that for most people, the latter would be much more important in the long term, and fixing the little things isn't really much help when in "the bigger picture" you're on a sinking ship. Everyone has different platforms and positions and rankings of importance for them, absolutely. Here are some of mine: -On the topic of healthcare, I definitely prefer Biden over Trump. (As I noted earlier, I would have preferred an even more progressive healthcare plan than what Biden's is, but I'll take Biden's rhetoric of "building on Obamacare" to Trump's rhetoric of "you sick? you die." ten out of ten times.) -On the topic of education, I far prefer Biden to Trump. -Same with promoting trust of scientific (e.g., climate change) and medical communities (e.g., coronavirus). -Same with promoting foreign relationships with allies. -Same with issues surrounding women's rights, minorities' rights, acceptance and not discrimination, etc. -I don't think the economic issue is a "loss" for Biden, either, given how Trump has literally caused the obliteration of our economy and made unemployment skyrocket (yes, causal relationship) with his purposeful inaction to prepare for coronavirus. We're way past slight tax increases/decreases; we're talking about families losing their jobs and losing their lives because of our current president. Over 202,000 dead and millions more sick. That's not good for the economy. -I'm not sure what you mean by quality-of-life, but I consider having healthcare, having a good education, having a better climate, and having a job to be relevant, so I think Trump loses on all those too. But, again, certainly other people have different priorities. I don't doubt that if you look at the platforms that Biden and Trump put forward, you will find Biden's much more palatable on its face. That's fair; I do too. But that's the exact opposite of a "bigger picture" view, that's looking at the short term. In the grand scheme of lesser evilism, you're accepting a long-term decline in a lot of what you care about without doing anything to buck the trend.
Take a longer-term view, maybe 30 years or so, and you'll see a broad decline in a lot of the things you claim to care about: education, scientific research, the economy, and so on. Trends within both Democratic and Republican administrations can be pointed to that lead to this situation. The upside on civil rights can be acknowledged, but is a reflection of public perception far more than any forward-thinking work by politicians who dare not advocate for an unpopular social viewpoint.
Healthcare and foreign policy are perhaps more interesting items, though. For healthcare, largely because although you can point to token improvements such as Obamacare, which solved some problems but created new ones, they are offered as alternatives to platforms such as universal healthcare which would absolutely make a strong positive difference (a platform which Biden outright said he would veto). For foreign policy, it seems that perception matters more than policy in this lens since there is a lot of continuity across presidencies in actual execution of policy.
Indeed, much of what Biden would do is to legitimize many of the steps backward Trump may have taken. Despite the perception that Biden would undo the entirety of what Trump did bad and then some, it seems clear that he will only very reluctantly and halfheartedly turn some of them back (e.g. tax cuts), accept some of those decisions as too late to change (e.g. embassy in Jerusalem), and create problems of his own that almost inexplicably seem to be as beneficial to corporatism as anything Trump did (e.g. new trade deals). Like with Obama, you can be enamored with the "we need teachers, scientists, and a powerful manufacturing industry" rhetoric that checks off all of the right boxes, or you can see that things are getting worse and worse for teachers and science people, and for manufacturing you eventually see that bold rhetoric give way to an admission that "those good jobs aren't coming back."
That's not forward progress, that's just stalling. And that is what the bigger picture view looks like.
|
On September 19 2020 03:02 Broetchenholer wrote: This is almost funny from the outside. Seeing GH agree with the whole conservative block of the forum about how shitty the Democrats are for the country and then coming to the conclusion, that a revolution is necessary.
As if revolutions are always won and never messy. Well it's not like I think voting for Republicans is the fix lol.
Also, no. I certainly don't think revolutions are always won and never messy. I've said as much the many other times I've been accused of such here.
|
On September 19 2020 03:02 Broetchenholer wrote: This is almost funny from the outside. Seeing GH agree with the whole conservative block of the forum about how shitty the Democrats are for the country and then coming to the conclusion, that a revolution is necessary.
As if revolutions are always won and never messy. The fact that there is always an opposition to revolution that is also part of your population does not phase anyone. I guess if the disgruntled left starts killing Democratic leaders for healthcare and social security, the right wing militias will just peacefully wait their basements until the other side knows what they want to stand for politically :D Revolutions might be useful, civil wars are not. How did your last one go? Everything was su much better afterwards, right? Slaves were freed and immediately completely equal with no more racism ever.
Cheering for conditions that finally allow for violent upheavel of the system is morally inferior to people making choices that improve the system, even if not as fast as you would hope. The choice is not between Trump and Drump, it is between Biden and Trump and it is clearly visible from theo outside which candidate would move your country into which direction.
For whatever it is worth, when I say revolution, what I mean is a major step towards preventing gross wealth accumulation. My version of revolution is seizure of all assets from individuals, whether stocks or otherwise, such that no human in the US has a net worth above $50M. Whatever systems need to change to allow that, I think a fundamental flaw of our current society is how much power money can give you and how that basically turns billionaires into gods.
|
United Kingdom13774 Posts
On September 19 2020 02:56 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2020 02:41 LegalLord wrote:On September 19 2020 02:08 Mohdoo wrote: It sounds like we agree on what happens if breaking the lesser of two evils dynamic doesn't work. It sounds like we just disagree on the % chance of effectiveness of the non-Biden vote. But I can understand that if you do think that, it makes sense. I don't, but whatever. It's a risk, obviously. Either accept a slower pace of things getting worse (but worse they will get), or do something that will clearly make things worse with some possibility that it'll make things better in the longer term. When things get bad enough, there is no doubt that the latter is the right option because there's not enough downside left to matter. On September 19 2020 02:08 Mohdoo wrote: For the sake of discussing pros and cons of various plans, I think all we need is comparable timeframes to have a worthwhile discussion. I don't owe you a longer plan than you give me when we are discussing the merits of plans. But I do enjoy those thought experiments and I am happy to play. It just seems like you aren't actually doing that yourself. Hey, if you start making arguments from "the bigger picture" then you sure as hell better have a "bigger picture" of what is supposed to happen. In fairness, DPB was the one that made the argument originally; you just went along for the ride because of your "moving to Canada" comment. And perhaps you should have actually stuck to that, because "I'm going to look out for my own" is at least an honest plan. More so than, "I'll move to Canada, maybe, but I really don't wanna and hope the problem just eventually fixes itself." Because the latter really isn't at all a "bigger picture" view, but rather short-termism. On September 19 2020 02:08 Mohdoo wrote: I think the worldview being put forth by Trump doesn't allow for the poor to unite because he turns the poor against each other. I think Trump's continued presidency would drastically delay the revolution that I want to see happen. So while we disagree on how to get there, we do seem to agree on what is necessary for the world to improve. I think Biden gets us there faster, you don't, that's fine. Revolutionary sentiment tends to come out of a perception of decline, of which there is plenty, and is always messy in terms of having many factions. In the grand scheme of things, both Biden and Trump are "the enemy" here. Alongside the rest of the political mainstream and their wealthy benefactors, of course. The sentiment against that broad group is pretty widespread across both parties already. I'm not sure what you mean by better off. I don't want to move to Canada, because I like my house, and Oregon is actually pretty damn insulated from Trump stuff...until recently, lol. but if I decide it is what is necessary for my future children, I'll do it. Do you like moving? No one does xD My impression is that perception of decline is what helped Trump get elected because he provided an alternative vision for why things were declining. Trump says don't blame the billionaires, blame these guys instead. Neither of us are remotely qualified to speak on this, but my impression would be that this alternate view of "why the world sucks" ultimately ends up significantly worsening the cohesion that is needed of the poor. When half of the poor are mad at other poor people, rather than billionaires, my assumption would be that it ends up harder to seize assets from billionaires. But I am by no means a scholar on that, so that's just my perception from what I have read. It feels like Trump's ideology provides an alternate group to blame for angry poor people. I certainly remember what immigration is like, and why I'm not a fan of it. But it's at least a long-term plan, unlike "hope things get better." So is "be wealthy enough that the downsides of living in the US don't apply to you" for what it's worth, as much as it might be distasteful to admit that to yourself.
Trump provided an alternative to the Republican mainstream, which propped up Jeb Bush in as clear of a "things are great - here's more of the same" message as anyone could have sent. Revolutionary sentiment hardly starts as unified, and Trump's first take of "the media and political elite are to blame" was pretty effective. Not bad on accuracy too; he just didn't ever have any intention of fixing anything. Targeting billionaires would have been better, but I suppose he'd have a conflict of interest there.
It's a false start, but that's not rare either. Might take a few years for the larger population to focus in on the real enemy here.
|
On September 19 2020 03:23 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2020 02:56 Mohdoo wrote:On September 19 2020 02:41 LegalLord wrote:On September 19 2020 02:08 Mohdoo wrote: It sounds like we agree on what happens if breaking the lesser of two evils dynamic doesn't work. It sounds like we just disagree on the % chance of effectiveness of the non-Biden vote. But I can understand that if you do think that, it makes sense. I don't, but whatever. It's a risk, obviously. Either accept a slower pace of things getting worse (but worse they will get), or do something that will clearly make things worse with some possibility that it'll make things better in the longer term. When things get bad enough, there is no doubt that the latter is the right option because there's not enough downside left to matter. On September 19 2020 02:08 Mohdoo wrote: For the sake of discussing pros and cons of various plans, I think all we need is comparable timeframes to have a worthwhile discussion. I don't owe you a longer plan than you give me when we are discussing the merits of plans. But I do enjoy those thought experiments and I am happy to play. It just seems like you aren't actually doing that yourself. Hey, if you start making arguments from "the bigger picture" then you sure as hell better have a "bigger picture" of what is supposed to happen. In fairness, DPB was the one that made the argument originally; you just went along for the ride because of your "moving to Canada" comment. And perhaps you should have actually stuck to that, because "I'm going to look out for my own" is at least an honest plan. More so than, "I'll move to Canada, maybe, but I really don't wanna and hope the problem just eventually fixes itself." Because the latter really isn't at all a "bigger picture" view, but rather short-termism. On September 19 2020 02:08 Mohdoo wrote: I think the worldview being put forth by Trump doesn't allow for the poor to unite because he turns the poor against each other. I think Trump's continued presidency would drastically delay the revolution that I want to see happen. So while we disagree on how to get there, we do seem to agree on what is necessary for the world to improve. I think Biden gets us there faster, you don't, that's fine. Revolutionary sentiment tends to come out of a perception of decline, of which there is plenty, and is always messy in terms of having many factions. In the grand scheme of things, both Biden and Trump are "the enemy" here. Alongside the rest of the political mainstream and their wealthy benefactors, of course. The sentiment against that broad group is pretty widespread across both parties already. I'm not sure what you mean by better off. I don't want to move to Canada, because I like my house, and Oregon is actually pretty damn insulated from Trump stuff...until recently, lol. but if I decide it is what is necessary for my future children, I'll do it. Do you like moving? No one does xD My impression is that perception of decline is what helped Trump get elected because he provided an alternative vision for why things were declining. Trump says don't blame the billionaires, blame these guys instead. Neither of us are remotely qualified to speak on this, but my impression would be that this alternate view of "why the world sucks" ultimately ends up significantly worsening the cohesion that is needed of the poor. When half of the poor are mad at other poor people, rather than billionaires, my assumption would be that it ends up harder to seize assets from billionaires. But I am by no means a scholar on that, so that's just my perception from what I have read. It feels like Trump's ideology provides an alternate group to blame for angry poor people. I certainly remember what immigration is like, and why I'm not a fan of it. But it's at least a long-term plan, unlike "hope things get better." So is "be wealthy enough that the downsides of living in the US don't apply to you" for what it's worth, as much as it might be distasteful to admit that to yourself. Trump provided an alternative to the Republican mainstream, which propped up Jeb Bush in as clear of a "things are great - here's more of the same" message as anyone could have sent. Revolutionary sentiment hardly starts as unified, and Trump's first take of "the media and political elite are to blame" was pretty effective. Not bad on accuracy too; he just didn't ever have any intention of fixing anything. Targeting billionaires would have been better, but I suppose he'd have a conflict of interest there. It's a false start, but that's not rare either. Might take a few years for the larger population to focus in on the real enemy here.
In fairness to people genuinely duped by Trump (granted they had to be dangerously oblivious) he at least said he was going after billionaires. Billionaire businessman Donald Trump took to the lobby of his famed Trump Tower on Monday morning and pledged to slap himself with a huge tax hike.
"It’s going to cost me a fortune, which is actually true," He promised to fight for universal healthcare too
Donald Trump is remaining firm on a sticking point for many Republican voters — government-funded health care for all.
“We do need health care for all people,” Trump said at a rally here this week. “What are we gonna do, let people die in the street?” Whereas Biden, as you pointed out, won't even lie and say he would sign something like a universal healthcare plan he'd never have to worry about seeing his desk anyway.
Lots of stuff like that he could just say he supports to win over voters without having to worry at all about being held accountable to it. That he doesn't sorta makes me think Democrats kinda like not having to govern (and don't wanna start in the nightmare scenario 2021 will be)
Instead he lies about stuff like getting arrested meeting Mandela and being a part of the civil rights movement. Things we know aren't true and have absolutely 0% chance of becoming true.
|
On September 19 2020 03:10 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2020 02:35 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:On September 19 2020 02:02 LegalLord wrote:On September 19 2020 01:44 DarkPlasmaBall wrote: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. 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. What are those platforms? You might win with Biden on social issues, albeit in that very reluctant sort of "movement with public opinion" way. You're absolutely going to lose on the economic / quality-of-life issues since he's clearly as much of a corporatist as any other Democrat/Republican out there. I suspect that for most people, the latter would be much more important in the long term, and fixing the little things isn't really much help when in "the bigger picture" you're on a sinking ship. Everyone has different platforms and positions and rankings of importance for them, absolutely. Here are some of mine: -On the topic of healthcare, I definitely prefer Biden over Trump. (As I noted earlier, I would have preferred an even more progressive healthcare plan than what Biden's is, but I'll take Biden's rhetoric of "building on Obamacare" to Trump's rhetoric of "you sick? you die." ten out of ten times.) -On the topic of education, I far prefer Biden to Trump. -Same with promoting trust of scientific (e.g., climate change) and medical communities (e.g., coronavirus). -Same with promoting foreign relationships with allies. -Same with issues surrounding women's rights, minorities' rights, acceptance and not discrimination, etc. -I don't think the economic issue is a "loss" for Biden, either, given how Trump has literally caused the obliteration of our economy and made unemployment skyrocket (yes, causal relationship) with his purposeful inaction to prepare for coronavirus. We're way past slight tax increases/decreases; we're talking about families losing their jobs and losing their lives because of our current president. Over 202,000 dead and millions more sick. That's not good for the economy. -I'm not sure what you mean by quality-of-life, but I consider having healthcare, having a good education, having a better climate, and having a job to be relevant, so I think Trump loses on all those too. But, again, certainly other people have different priorities. I don't doubt that if you look at the platforms that Biden and Trump put forward, you will find Biden's much more palatable on its face. That's fair; I do too. But that's the exact opposite of a "bigger picture" view, that's looking at the short term. In the grand scheme of lesser evilism, you're accepting a long-term decline in a lot of what you care about without doing anything to buck the trend. Take a longer-term view, maybe 30 years or so, and you'll see a broad decline in a lot of the things you claim to care about: education, scientific research, the economy, and so on. Trends within both Democratic and Republican administrations can be pointed to that lead to this situation. The upside on civil rights can be acknowledged, but is a reflection of public perception far more than any forward-thinking work by politicians who dare not advocate for an unpopular social viewpoint. Healthcare and foreign policy are perhaps more interesting items, though. For healthcare, largely because although you can point to token improvements such as Obamacare, which solved some problems but created new ones, they are offered as alternatives to platforms such as universal healthcare which would absolutely make a strong positive difference (a platform which Biden outright said he would veto). For foreign policy, it seems that perception matters more than policy in this lens since there is a lot of continuity across presidencies in actual execution of policy. Indeed, much of what Biden would do is to legitimize many of the steps backward Trump may have taken. Despite the perception that Biden would undo the entirety of what Trump did bad and then some, it seems clear that he will only very reluctantly and halfheartedly turn some of them back (e.g. tax cuts), accept some of those decisions as too late to change (e.g. embassy in Jerusalem), and create problems of his own that almost inexplicably seem to be as beneficial to corporatism as anything Trump did (e.g. new trade deals). Like with Obama, you can be enamored with the "we need teachers, scientists, and a powerful manufacturing industry" rhetoric that checks off all of the right boxes, or you can see that things are getting worse and worse for teachers and science people, and for manufacturing you eventually see that bold rhetoric give way to an admission that "those good jobs aren't coming back." That's not forward progress, that's just stalling. And that is what the bigger picture view looks like.
You're defining "the bigger picture" in a different way than I am. You're speaking of long-term (as opposed to short-term) outcomes, and that's totally fine. I think that thinking about long-term effects are extremely important too. That's not what I meant by bigger picture though, so to avoid a semantics argument, let me try to explain what I was referring to a bit better when I used that label, and then I'd also be happy to respond to your statements about long-term consequences.
By "bigger picture", I was referring to the overall assessment of a candidate's platforms. Comprehensively or holistically, if you will. The whole transcript. In other words, after taking into account all of the things I care about, whichever candidate aligns with me the most. As an example, let's suppose Biden wanted to outlaw abortion, but that's the only thing that's different about him. I really, really, really would not want to support a candidate who does that, but if it came down to supporting this hypothetical Biden who still promoted other things I cared about (climate change, actually dealing with coronavirus, education, more affordable healthcare, etc.) versus the current Donald Trump who also wants to outlaw abortion but also doesn't even align with me on other things, I would still reluctantly vote for Biden... because when I look at the bigger picture of everything Biden stands for (and doesn't stand for), and compare it to the bigger picture of Trump, I still think Biden would be better. I prefer Biden's overall report card to Trump's, if that helps.
I'm curious about this statement that you've made: "Take a longer-term view, maybe 30 years or so, and you'll see a broad decline in a lot of the things you claim to care about: education, scientific research, the economy, and so on. Trends within both Democratic and Republican administrations can be pointed to that lead to this situation." I'm not sure if that timespan is referring to the past 30 years or what you feel will happen over the next 30 years, but I'm wondering what your justification is for that assertion, especially with regards to, say, education (since I'm more experienced in that field than other fields). Biden actually has some plans ( https://joebiden.com/education/# ) and I'm confident that he'd appoint a Secretary of Education who's experienced, as opposed to Betsy DeVos. That's what I was referring to, when I said I preferred Biden over Trump on the topic of education. If we're looking outside the scope of just this presidential election, then I would agree with you that neither political side has figured out education just yet... although it seems to be a common conservative trope nowadays to simply ditch public schools and offer the facade of "school choice" and all that jazz, which shows a general disinterest in actually improving public education at all.
|
Chomsky coming out and saying to vote was enough to get me on board, and he did that years ago. There's not really a more prominent figurehead of what anarchists are thinking than him, though they've always been much more skeptical of grand revolutions than marxists (which is the only other short term option than voting for the lesser of two evils).
Reform of things like the voting process can be done from the ground up, and is far better served by doing that. To get rid of the lesser of two evils, you must get rid of FPTP voting systems. Maine did it, so it's clearly possible.
|
Apparently Kodak got a nice COVID letter of interest for a grant of 700millions. Trump sold it as a huge progress for the medical sector and as a real grant. The kodak stocks went up 2000% in 2days.
|
On September 19 2020 03:57 Erasme wrote:Show nested quote +On September 19 2020 03:37 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 19 2020 03:23 LegalLord wrote:On September 19 2020 02:56 Mohdoo wrote:On September 19 2020 02:41 LegalLord wrote:On September 19 2020 02:08 Mohdoo wrote: It sounds like we agree on what happens if breaking the lesser of two evils dynamic doesn't work. It sounds like we just disagree on the % chance of effectiveness of the non-Biden vote. But I can understand that if you do think that, it makes sense. I don't, but whatever. It's a risk, obviously. Either accept a slower pace of things getting worse (but worse they will get), or do something that will clearly make things worse with some possibility that it'll make things better in the longer term. When things get bad enough, there is no doubt that the latter is the right option because there's not enough downside left to matter. On September 19 2020 02:08 Mohdoo wrote: For the sake of discussing pros and cons of various plans, I think all we need is comparable timeframes to have a worthwhile discussion. I don't owe you a longer plan than you give me when we are discussing the merits of plans. But I do enjoy those thought experiments and I am happy to play. It just seems like you aren't actually doing that yourself. Hey, if you start making arguments from "the bigger picture" then you sure as hell better have a "bigger picture" of what is supposed to happen. In fairness, DPB was the one that made the argument originally; you just went along for the ride because of your "moving to Canada" comment. And perhaps you should have actually stuck to that, because "I'm going to look out for my own" is at least an honest plan. More so than, "I'll move to Canada, maybe, but I really don't wanna and hope the problem just eventually fixes itself." Because the latter really isn't at all a "bigger picture" view, but rather short-termism. On September 19 2020 02:08 Mohdoo wrote: I think the worldview being put forth by Trump doesn't allow for the poor to unite because he turns the poor against each other. I think Trump's continued presidency would drastically delay the revolution that I want to see happen. So while we disagree on how to get there, we do seem to agree on what is necessary for the world to improve. I think Biden gets us there faster, you don't, that's fine. Revolutionary sentiment tends to come out of a perception of decline, of which there is plenty, and is always messy in terms of having many factions. In the grand scheme of things, both Biden and Trump are "the enemy" here. Alongside the rest of the political mainstream and their wealthy benefactors, of course. The sentiment against that broad group is pretty widespread across both parties already. I'm not sure what you mean by better off. I don't want to move to Canada, because I like my house, and Oregon is actually pretty damn insulated from Trump stuff...until recently, lol. but if I decide it is what is necessary for my future children, I'll do it. Do you like moving? No one does xD My impression is that perception of decline is what helped Trump get elected because he provided an alternative vision for why things were declining. Trump says don't blame the billionaires, blame these guys instead. Neither of us are remotely qualified to speak on this, but my impression would be that this alternate view of "why the world sucks" ultimately ends up significantly worsening the cohesion that is needed of the poor. When half of the poor are mad at other poor people, rather than billionaires, my assumption would be that it ends up harder to seize assets from billionaires. But I am by no means a scholar on that, so that's just my perception from what I have read. It feels like Trump's ideology provides an alternate group to blame for angry poor people. I certainly remember what immigration is like, and why I'm not a fan of it. But it's at least a long-term plan, unlike "hope things get better." So is "be wealthy enough that the downsides of living in the US don't apply to you" for what it's worth, as much as it might be distasteful to admit that to yourself. Trump provided an alternative to the Republican mainstream, which propped up Jeb Bush in as clear of a "things are great - here's more of the same" message as anyone could have sent. Revolutionary sentiment hardly starts as unified, and Trump's first take of "the media and political elite are to blame" was pretty effective. Not bad on accuracy too; he just didn't ever have any intention of fixing anything. Targeting billionaires would have been better, but I suppose he'd have a conflict of interest there. It's a false start, but that's not rare either. Might take a few years for the larger population to focus in on the real enemy here. In fairness to people genuinely duped by Trump (granted they had to be dangerously oblivious) he at least said he was going after billionaires. Billionaire businessman Donald Trump took to the lobby of his famed Trump Tower on Monday morning and pledged to slap himself with a huge tax hike.
"It’s going to cost me a fortune, which is actually true," He promised to fight for universal healthcare too Donald Trump is remaining firm on a sticking point for many Republican voters — government-funded health care for all.
“We do need health care for all people,” Trump said at a rally here this week. “What are we gonna do, let people die in the street?” Whereas Biden, as you pointed out, won't even lie and say he would sign something like a universal healthcare plan he'd never have to worry about seeing his desk anyway. Lots of stuff like that he could just say he supports to win over voters without having to worry at all about being held accountable to it. That he doesn't sorta makes me think Democrats kinda like not having to govern (and don't wanna start in the nightmare scenario 2021 will be) Instead he lies about stuff like getting arrested meeting Mandela and being a part of the civil rights movement. Things we know aren't true and have absolutely 0% chance of becoming true. We all know the lies DJT spread on his healthcare plan. It's been coming in the next 2 weeks since forever. If you keep using quotes of a known liar to prove your points, well thats just peachy. DPB just cited Biden's policy page like he's not a known liar, whereas I acknowledged one would have to be "dangerously oblivious" to have believed Trump. My point was that he at least had the sense to say he supported popular things even if anyone with half a wit about them knew he was lying.
|
|
|
|