|
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 States41934 Posts
On June 22 2023 00:54 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2023 00:36 Taelshin wrote:On the topic of us politics RFK just gave a rousing speech not long after being on Joe Rogan's podcast. + Show Spoiler + I've sniped it to where his speech starts and its a good listen. Gotta say I'm pretty pumped to see a democrat saying what he's saying god damn its refreshing. Interested in what you all think. Democrats would sooner burn down the nomination process than let him win it so he's basically got no chance. On the other hand he got a pretty positive response from Rogan listeners so he actually has the crossover appeal Biden's more conservative choices are supposed to be rationalized by. If beating Trump/DeSantis (who are both beating Biden and Harris in the polls) is the most important thing, RFK Jr. might be Democrats best chance.
Biden can beat Trump. We know because we’ve tried.
|
Regarding RFK I recall reading in this topic some time earlier that DeSantis running against Trump will ruin Republicans chances for election. It would seem now that RFK running against Biden fits similar scenario?
|
|
|
RFK jr is running, and funded by conservatives, because the only way Trump can win is to split the Democratic base.
The guy is an anti-vaxxer who compared the effort to control Covid to nazi Germany.
He has absolutely no place with the Democrats.
|
On June 22 2023 01:05 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2023 00:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 22 2023 00:36 Taelshin wrote:On the topic of us politics RFK just gave a rousing speech not long after being on Joe Rogan's podcast. + Show Spoiler +https://youtu.be/z59vaHQ3zPE?t=2712 I've sniped it to where his speech starts and its a good listen. Gotta say I'm pretty pumped to see a democrat saying what he's saying god damn its refreshing. Interested in what you all think. Democrats would sooner burn down the nomination process than let him win it so he's basically got no chance. On the other hand he got a pretty positive response from Rogan listeners so he actually has the crossover appeal Biden's more conservative choices are supposed to be rationalized by. If beating Trump/DeSantis (who are both beating Biden and Harris in the polls) is the most important thing, RFK Jr. might be Democrats best chance. Biden can beat Trump. We know because we’ve tried.
Biden can absolutely beat Trump, even if the polls favor Trump on Election Day.
As far as the rationale of "We know because we’ve tried" goes, what would your response be to a counterpoint that goes something like "Sure, Biden beat Trump last election, but a lot of things have changed since then, such as Biden noticeably slowing down cognitively, and it might be the case that some Democratic voters are unhappy with how Biden's presidency has turned out. Therefore, those disillusioned voters may stay home and not vote for him a second time (not everyone believes in the "lesser of two evils" voting philosophy). For these reasons, the fact that Biden beat Trump in the past doesn't mean he necessarily has a good chance of beating him in future." Thoughts?
|
Northern Ireland23737 Posts
On June 22 2023 00:18 Taelshin wrote:
@sadist "The "Conservatives" on TL just muck up the politics thread and the covid thread. Theres always a rotating group of you, its like you tag each in/out for a while. It would appear you are all a smurf of a single person or something.
"
This is the peak, The height of idiocy. You don't like Conservatives, You don't like their ideas. That's fine. But the real issue is, you don't like idea's that don't totally align with your own. You'd like this forum to only subsist of people who believe what you believe, Who are pro to the same arguments you are. What a joke 6000 posts in and you don't realize your talking in an open internet forum not your own head.
How didn't anyone of you reasonable liberals call this out? such trash. Garbage post that'd id report for lowering the IQ of everyone on this forum that has to read it if it was an option. Jfc.
Ever since ‘own the libs’ became de rigeur it is like pulling fucking teeth to have any kind of remotely productive discussion on any kind of ideologically contentious issue.
Absolute classics of the genre like the ‘gotcha into immediate withdrawal’, ‘implore someone to watch an hour long video without summating its topic’.
Who can forget the ‘change the scope of the discussion instead of keeping on topic’? Expand outwards into a bunch of unconnected wider societal critiques! Or absolutely drill into the minutiae of some casually mentioned tangential observation.
Do not ever unconditionally concede a point. This is only permissible if it’s a tactical concession with the intent of applying a scope shiftTM
Even posters here do these, and TL has a much higher standard of general civil discourse than much of the wider internet.
The method of argumentation is the problem,
You’re welcome to check but I’m pretty sure I’ve bemoaned the lack of a wider conservative counterpoint in this thread basically every time someone gets banned for posting terribly.
It’s really not rocket science, this goes across the aisle too obviously, if you want adult big boy discussions learn to have them. If you can’t do this pretty basic step then people who want a serious discussion aren’t going to want to have it with you.
|
@Gorsamth is that a conspiracy theory I hear? Could you give us some concrete evidence to support your claims that RFK is being funded by conservatives to split the Democratic base?
I'd more interested in Trump vs RFK now that's an election. Sadly the Dem's are unlikely to let that take place. You should watch the speech though, disagree with his vax stuff, maybe agree with him on the foreign policy stuff.
@newsunshine
Being a dick and having differing opinion's are different things. Your a Leftest who likes to berate anyone whos not with you. That's cool, Just don't call for people who disagree with you to be removed from the discourse. It's somewhat pathetic your defending a person who's living in a world where every "conservative" in their own words, (sadist)"would appear you are all a smurf of a single person or something". Such as it is, Ill take it that you didn't read his post, Barely read my post, Saw a name, and dove deep. Check out the RFK speech though you might like it.
|
On June 22 2023 01:05 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2023 00:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 22 2023 00:36 Taelshin wrote:On the topic of us politics RFK just gave a rousing speech not long after being on Joe Rogan's podcast. + Show Spoiler +https://youtu.be/z59vaHQ3zPE?t=2712 I've sniped it to where his speech starts and its a good listen. Gotta say I'm pretty pumped to see a democrat saying what he's saying god damn its refreshing. Interested in what you all think. Democrats would sooner burn down the nomination process than let him win it so he's basically got no chance. On the other hand he got a pretty positive response from Rogan listeners so he actually has the crossover appeal Biden's more conservative choices are supposed to be rationalized by. If beating Trump/DeSantis (who are both beating Biden and Harris in the polls) is the most important thing, RFK Jr. might be Democrats best chance. Biden can beat Trump. We know because we’ve tried.
He can, he just might not, and might not be their best chance. Democrats are going to vote for their nominee because the alternative would be supporting Trump in their view and RFK Jr. clearly appeals more to people that don't vote exclusively based on party affiliation (which is a large chunk of the voters Trump got that previous Republicans didn't).
Between Biden and Trump, Biden's a lot further away (in a politically bad way) from his position in 2020 (meaning public opinion, polling, etc) Friday will be 4 years since the first Democrat primary debate of the 2020 cycle (they wont have any this cycle if they can avoid it). Trump was consistently polling ~10% behind Biden whereas at basically the same time in the 2024 cycle Trump is now leading. Polls indicated several Democrats would beat Trump in a head to head back at this time in 2020, now, no Democrat (they really only poll Biden and Harris) is consistently ahead of Trump in presidential polls (though no one is polling RFK jr vs Trump).
Polling isn't everything, but Biden's just clearly got less support nationally in 2024 than he had in 2020 and the difference is more than enough of a drop for him to lose.
|
@wombat "own the libs' is mirrored by "own the cons" and I hate to say it on this forum there is a lot more of the latter then the former but I do understand your point.
I read this thread to be informed on what the left/liberal side is thinking. I like to get the other side of the coin. In a way I'm glad I get this glimpse into the lefty-hive-mind (sadly its become a weird neo-con/liberal hive mind if you look at the war thread) its only a blessing that people like yourself, blackjack, drone, GH are still here posting. That being said I'm not going to be bullied off the forum by people who disagree with me.
|
On June 22 2023 01:34 Taelshin wrote:
@Gorsamth is that a conspiracy theory I hear? Could you give us some concrete evidence to support your claims that RFK is being funded by conservatives to split the Democratic base?
I'd more interested in Trump vs RFK now that's an election. Sadly the Dem's are unlikely to let that take place. You should watch the speech though, disagree with his vax stuff, maybe agree with him on the foreign policy stuff.
@newsunshine
Being a dick and having differing opinion's are different things. Your a Leftest who likes to berate anyone whos not with you. That's cool, Just don't call for people who disagree with you to be removed from the discourse. It's somewhat pathetic your defending a person who's living in a world where every "conservative" in their own words, (sadist)"would appear you are all a smurf of a single person or something". Such as it is, Ill take it that you didn't read his post, Barely read my post, Saw a name, and dove deep. Check out the RFK speech though you might like it.
Did I call for anyone to be removed from the discourse? If you're gonna go in on me, show the receipts or shut up. I called you an asshole because you were posting like one, and you have not done anything to refute that notion. If you want to come back and respond to what I actually said, do so. Otherwise this is a waste of time.
User was warned for this post
|
On June 22 2023 00:18 Taelshin wrote:
@sadist "The "Conservatives" on TL just muck up the politics thread and the covid thread. Theres always a rotating group of you, its like you tag each in/out for a while. It would appear you are all a smurf of a single person or something.
"
This is the peak, The height of idiocy. You don't like Conservatives, You don't like their ideas. That's fine. But the real issue is, you don't like idea's that don't totally align with your own. You'd like this forum to only subsist of people who believe what you believe, Who are pro to the same arguments you are. What a joke 6000 posts in and you don't realize your talking in an open internet forum not your own head.
How didn't anyone of you reasonable liberals call this out? such trash. Garbage post that'd id report for lowering the IQ of everyone on this forum that has to read it if it was an option. Jfc.
Buddy
I dont need ideas to align to my own. There cant even be a coherent discussion on most things because of the absolute garbage most of you post. You all have a few hundred posts and it seems like when one of you is banned the other one shows up after not being around for months. No one is lowering the IQ of anybody here other than the guy not understanding Covid and Vaccine statistics and posting an article like it proves the vaccine leads to more death "Gotcha Libtards!" and then you post the RFK Jr speech video like he has a chance in hell when hes a known anti-vaxer.
|
On June 22 2023 01:34 Taelshin wrote:
@Gorsamth is that a conspiracy theory I hear? Could you give us some concrete evidence to support your claims that RFK is being funded by conservatives to split the Democratic base?
I'd more interested in Trump vs RFK now that's an election. Sadly the Dem's are unlikely to let that take place. You should watch the speech though, disagree with his vax stuff, maybe agree with him on the foreign policy stuff.
@newsunshine
Being a dick and having differing opinion's are different things. Your a Leftest who likes to berate anyone whos not with you. That's cool, Just don't call for people who disagree with you to be removed from the discourse. It's somewhat pathetic your defending a person who's living in a world where every "conservative" in their own words, (sadist)"would appear you are all a smurf of a single person or something". Such as it is, Ill take it that you didn't read his post, Barely read my post, Saw a name, and dove deep. Check out the RFK speech though you might like it. Your right I should have probably been a little more nuanced. But there is a fair bit of noise from the MAGA crowd around RFK and article such as this one that tie his exposure and funding to them.
https://talkingpointsmemo.com/edblog/trumpers-know-3rd-party-spoilers-are-trumps-only-shot
Then there’s the primary campaign of Robert F. Kennedy Jr. It’s amazing how open this one is. His top backers are Steve Bannon, Mike Flynn, Roger Stone. He’s a creation of the world of MAGA. I hadn’t given the guy a great deal of thought since he played the Pied Piper of supposed number crunching showing John Kerry had actually won the 2004 presidential election. At the time it was a kind of wishful thinking wrongheadedness that was clearly wrong but seemed like a one-off thing. It portended more to come.
Now I don't know if the public has a way to see how the backers of a candidate are, I would love to be able to actually verify such statements myself but the little searching I did didn't turn up anything.
|
On June 22 2023 01:49 Taelshin wrote:
@wombat "own the libs' is mirrored by "own the cons" and I hate to say it on this forum there is a lot more of the latter then the former but I do understand your point.
I read this thread to be informed on what the left/liberal side is thinking. I like to get the other side of the coin. In a way I'm glad I get this glimpse into the lefty-hive-mind (sadly its become a weird neo-con/liberal hive mind if you look at the war thread) its only a blessing that people like yourself, blackjack, drone, GH are still here posting. That being said I'm not going to be bullied off the forum by people who disagree with me.
And now the victim schtick. If you haven't read this thread enough to see the arguments the Left has among itself then you don't read it to understand their point of view. Just peace out as soon as people call you on your nonsense. 10/10
|
On June 22 2023 00:36 Taelshin wrote:On the topic of us politics RFK just gave a rousing speech not long after being on Joe Rogan's podcast. + Show Spoiler +https://youtu.be/z59vaHQ3zPE?t=2712 I've sniped it to where his speech starts and its a good listen. Gotta say I'm pretty pumped to see a democrat saying what he's saying god damn its refreshing. Interested in what you all think.
Thank you for posting the RFK Jr. video; I probably would have missed it. I watched from the ~45-minute mark (where the real speech starts, which is where you marked) until the end. These are my thoughts on the speech:
He spent a lot of time talking about JFK. At least half the speech, I believe. I think if RFK Jr. can make it clear that his own policies are inspired by, and are parallel to, his uncle's old presidential views, then that could be seen as a good thing among Democratic voters. However, he has to be careful not to overdo it and make it look like he's just trying to earn votes with "Do you know who I'm related to" (the whole "family/dynasty" political dynamic has been pretty taboo, for various reasons).
In this speech (around 56:20), he criticizes Biden for saying that we need to stop Putin and exhaust Putin's military resources instead of "anything related to helping Ukraine", but I think all those objectives are fundamentally tied together, especially when Putin is literally invading Ukraine. It's cool he name-dropped "World of Warcraft" though, I guess.
I agree with his position that we should avoid war, if possible, but I don't think him aiming the assertion of "interested in maximum confrontation" at Biden is going to stick, given that Biden withdrew us from Afghanistan and has been pretty measured and reasonable regarding assisting Ukraine against Putin.
Also, crucially, RFK Jr. will eventually be asked how he would handle [input any serious international violent conflict here], and he's going to need a much more elaborate plan than just a one-word response of "peacefully".
I agree with him that violence in the United States is a problem, but I'd like to know what he would do to address that problem.
I agree with him that our infrastructure in the United States is a problem, but I'd like to know what he would do to address that problem.
"Why hasn't Biden talked with Putin?" He has. Diplomacy is generally tried first, but it doesn't solve every problem.
Maybe the purpose of this speech was to name-drop his uncle and say that war is bad, in which case: mission accomplished. I suppose I'll need to wait for an actual interview or debate to hear how he would actually change the very real problems he's identified.
This final point is not a remark about any substance, but rather, optics (which a lot of people will care about, superficially and unfortunately): For all the criticism Biden gets for being old and slowing down cognitively, RFK literally sounds like he's going to die at any second. Cannot unhear. His strained, gasping voice sounds like it could come from a thousand-year-old mummy. I understand it's completely irrelevant to his positions on any important issues, but I can't see him going toe-to-toe in any debate (let alone one against Trump) if he physically can't raise his voice above a weak whisper. I think that will affect how people will view his chances of beating Trump in the general election, regardless of how good of a president he could hypothetically be.
|
@Gorasmeth I understand, and that's fair. I could totally understand how a strong democrat candidate challenge for the current president could impact the election. That being said the current President is bad, And we could do better, From either side. Also its not surprising that a media sites are pushing these concerns (Especially if they approve of the status quo). That doesn't mean the man is a Conservative operative here to sabotage Joe Biden's re-election attempt.
@DPB Dude thanks for the re-cap I appreciate that you watched it and your review. Totally agree with the he can't lean on his family shtick for ever but we'll see, To me it was pretty powerful but maybe it will lose its luster. Sadly we won't get to see him debate anyone because Biden has said he wont debate. But incase your interested ill link the RFK Joe Rogan interview here it's on Spotify(free to watch) and is very interesting but its def more in the vax/anti vax territory.
RFK JOE ROGAN + Show Spoiler +https://open.spotify.com/episode/3DQfcTY4viyXsIXQ89NXvg
|
|
|
On June 22 2023 02:22 Taelshin wrote:@DPB Dude thanks for the re-cap I appreciate that you watched it and your review. Totally agree with the he can't lean on his family shtick for ever but we'll see, To me it was pretty powerful but maybe it will lose its luster. Sadly we won't get to see him debate anyone because Biden has said he wont debate. But incase your interested ill link the RFK Joe Rogan interview here it's on Spotify(free to watch) and is very interesting but its def more in the vax/anti vax territory. RFK JOE ROGAN + Show Spoiler +https://open.spotify.com/episode/3DQfcTY4viyXsIXQ89NXvg
No problem! I try to at least learn a little bit about each Democratic candidate before a presidential primary, which includes listening to them speak on their own terms, like giving the kind of speech you posted earlier.
For full disclosure, I generally consider a planned, prepared, single-speaker speech to pretty much be the best case scenario for any politician to give their platform, because there are no interruptions, no challenges, no criticism, no accountability, and so the candidate can pretty much choose whatever they want to say... so I'm worried for RFK Jr.'s chances to win the primary, if that speech was the best he has to offer.
I don't have a Spotify account (and that podcast is three hours long x.x), so I'll probably skip it, especially if it starts to talk about conspiracy theories and anti-vax territory. I already know about his.... complicated... relationship with medicine/vaccinations, and there are a few video clips circulating from that Joe Rogan interview where RFK Jr. says that Wi-Fi causes cancer, that he's aware that intelligence agencies might assassinate him, and a couple other very remarkable assertions. I'm thankful his original speech didn't have this kind of rhetoric, but the content from Joe Rogan's interview seems to be the other side to RFK Jr. I imagine that most people who choose not to vote for RFK Jr. will dismiss him for the kinds of things he said on the Joe Rogan interview, as opposed to the things he said in his prepared speech.
|
On June 21 2023 23:02 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2023 22:52 Liquid`Drone wrote:
BJ wasn't actually complaining about the banning of gas stoves, he was complaining about ridiculing republicans for claiming that democrats were going to do it followed by doing it. It's very possible that he's also opposed, but the issue wasn't the policy.
And I agree with that. I mean, I haven't followed to what degree democrats have denied wanting to do that and then doing that, but I think there is a real issue with people not truthfully communicating what going carbon neutral will entail, although I also understand the logic because honest communication might lose you the votes you need to go carbon neutral and that's an urgent matter, but I can't deny that it'll also have long term costs in terms of trust in politicians. I also see the relation between this and covid-related communication, where some politicians/spokespeople thought they could get even more desirable behavior through not being perfectly honest, and while yes, that might be true, and there is a real benefit through doing so, there's a long term danger in further eroding trust in institutions/politicians. I think it's fair to think about this and conclude that you prefer the short term gain, but not to claim there is no potential long term harm. Drone, agree with everything you just typed about eroding trust. Thats not BJs point though. He 100% wants to show those smug virtue signaling liberals how dumb they really are or how they are hypocrits. All the snarky takes and pot shots show the true intentions. And you know what? Hes right. A lot of those people suck. But the fact of the matter is its really easy to sit on the sidelines and take potshots at people trying to fix things while never offering solutions to real problems yourself. Additionally, while I agree "if you know better you should do better" its never mentioned that one party/movement BY DESIGN erodes faith in Government and Institutions. Its literally been the US Republican calling card that all problems are caused by Govt. Govt sucks. They need to get out of our way. Etc. Isnt it funny how the party who says elect me because government sucks has an incentive to make it suck more so they can further their message and get elected again? This has been going in the US for well over 50 years. Maybe there needs to be a ceasefire of the snarky one liners, misconstrued statements, bad faith arguments on both sides of the discussion. But it takes two to Tango. If BJ would plainly say what he believes instead of beating around the bush it would help.
Actually that was my point. Just look at the context of the argument to know my point. I was talking about labeling people as conspiracy theorists for believing in very plausible things. I'm sure we could argue all day about the semantics of whether "taking away your gas stove" means functionally removing your ability to own one or jackbooted thugs kicking in your door to steal it. Or how much of the "conspiracy theories" actually used the verbiage of "taking away your stove" vs "wanting to ban stoves." But what you did was argue the merits of whether we should ban gas stoves and try to hit carbon neutral. At that point we're just talking past each other because I'm not making any argument of whether or not we should ban gas stoves as a matter of policy.
|
United States41934 Posts
On June 22 2023 01:16 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On June 22 2023 01:05 KwarK wrote:On June 22 2023 00:54 GreenHorizons wrote:On June 22 2023 00:36 Taelshin wrote:On the topic of us politics RFK just gave a rousing speech not long after being on Joe Rogan's podcast. + Show Spoiler +https://youtu.be/z59vaHQ3zPE?t=2712 I've sniped it to where his speech starts and its a good listen. Gotta say I'm pretty pumped to see a democrat saying what he's saying god damn its refreshing. Interested in what you all think. Democrats would sooner burn down the nomination process than let him win it so he's basically got no chance. On the other hand he got a pretty positive response from Rogan listeners so he actually has the crossover appeal Biden's more conservative choices are supposed to be rationalized by. If beating Trump/DeSantis (who are both beating Biden and Harris in the polls) is the most important thing, RFK Jr. might be Democrats best chance. Biden can beat Trump. We know because we’ve tried. Biden can absolutely beat Trump, even if the polls favor Trump on Election Day. As far as the rationale of "We know because we’ve tried" goes, what would your response be to a counterpoint that goes something like "Sure, Biden beat Trump last election, but a lot of things have changed since then, such as Biden noticeably slowing down cognitively, and it might be the case that some Democratic voters are unhappy with how Biden's presidency has turned out. Therefore, those disillusioned voters may stay home and not vote for him a second time (not everyone believes in the "lesser of two evils" voting philosophy). For these reasons, the fact that Biden beat Trump in the past doesn't mean he necessarily has a good chance of beating him in future." Thoughts?
If we’re talking how events after the 2016 election has changed the public perception of them then I don’t see how Trump hasn’t been more harmed by his attempted coup and series of indictments.
|
On June 22 2023 05:39 BlackJack wrote:Show nested quote +On June 21 2023 23:02 Sadist wrote:On June 21 2023 22:52 Liquid`Drone wrote:
BJ wasn't actually complaining about the banning of gas stoves, he was complaining about ridiculing republicans for claiming that democrats were going to do it followed by doing it. It's very possible that he's also opposed, but the issue wasn't the policy.
And I agree with that. I mean, I haven't followed to what degree democrats have denied wanting to do that and then doing that, but I think there is a real issue with people not truthfully communicating what going carbon neutral will entail, although I also understand the logic because honest communication might lose you the votes you need to go carbon neutral and that's an urgent matter, but I can't deny that it'll also have long term costs in terms of trust in politicians. I also see the relation between this and covid-related communication, where some politicians/spokespeople thought they could get even more desirable behavior through not being perfectly honest, and while yes, that might be true, and there is a real benefit through doing so, there's a long term danger in further eroding trust in institutions/politicians. I think it's fair to think about this and conclude that you prefer the short term gain, but not to claim there is no potential long term harm. Drone, agree with everything you just typed about eroding trust. Thats not BJs point though. He 100% wants to show those smug virtue signaling liberals how dumb they really are or how they are hypocrits. All the snarky takes and pot shots show the true intentions. And you know what? Hes right. A lot of those people suck. But the fact of the matter is its really easy to sit on the sidelines and take potshots at people trying to fix things while never offering solutions to real problems yourself. Additionally, while I agree "if you know better you should do better" its never mentioned that one party/movement BY DESIGN erodes faith in Government and Institutions. Its literally been the US Republican calling card that all problems are caused by Govt. Govt sucks. They need to get out of our way. Etc. Isnt it funny how the party who says elect me because government sucks has an incentive to make it suck more so they can further their message and get elected again? This has been going in the US for well over 50 years. Maybe there needs to be a ceasefire of the snarky one liners, misconstrued statements, bad faith arguments on both sides of the discussion. But it takes two to Tango. If BJ would plainly say what he believes instead of beating around the bush it would help. Actually that was my point. Just look at the context of the argument to know my point. I was talking about labeling people as conspiracy theorists for believing in very plausible things. I'm sure we could argue all day about the semantics of whether "taking away your gas stove" means functionally removing your ability to own one or jackbooted thugs kicking in your door to steal it. Or how much of the "conspiracy theories" actually used the verbiage of "taking away your stove" vs "wanting to ban stoves." But what you did was argue the merits of whether we should ban gas stoves and try to hit carbon neutral. At that point we're just talking past each other because I'm not making any argument of whether or not we should ban gas stoves as a matter of policy.
But the verbiage and words used actually do matter. Thats why this is frustrating. Anyone saying or having headlines about the government taking away your gas stoves is a big part of the problem. Thats not whats happening. Headlines like that conjure images of Ray Bradbury and some dystopian future. Why do you want to critique democrats on the subtleties of language but not hold republicans accountable for firing up their base with sensationalism?
Im all for being honest with people about what a carbon neutral future looks like. The idea is frankly daunting and sweat enducing to think about when you realize the scale we are talking about. But its hard to have those honest conversations when anytime we try to fix a problem one party screams bloody murder, denies the problem exists, says we can do nothing about it, and misleads with sensationalist BS. They are not behaving like adults. Simply trying to change anything sends them into a rage.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
