|
On October 24 2020 01:20 LegalLord wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 00:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 21:49 Zambrah wrote:On October 23 2020 20:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 23 2020 20:09 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 20:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 23 2020 20:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 19:50 GreenHorizons wrote:Like, it's not worth choosing between Democrats and Republicans on climate change be because the improvements democrats are aiming for are not enough and so anyway the planet is doomed and it makes no difference. "Significant improvement that might not be enoughwhAtever" or "the worst you can possibly do" are worth the same when you have abandoned all nuances and disregard all constraints. The actual argument is that "not enough" and "worse than that" aren't acceptable for obvious reasons. Yes and the reality is that right now those are the only options. Incorrect. They are the only two with acceptable ranges of outcomes for you (and people that share that belief). Whatever man, this is a loss of time. Go write "Grand socialist revolution!!!!" on your ballot, that's gonna make people's life better. You can be frustrated about your errors if you like, but I'd appreciate you accurately describing what you're arguing against. EDIT: Important note:ACA is not enough, so you won't chose between ACA and nothing. ACA is most likely lost regardless of the outcome of the election. Barrett (who Biden is not opposed to and described as a "very fine person") is set to be confirmed before the election and SCOTUS will take up the related case before inauguration (presuming there is one). This is the sort of thing that makes the "Lul vote dem its all you have" so fucking wretched feeling. They're just NOT as different as theyre made out to be, the differences between them are overblown. Trump has been awful but my life hasnt been that different between a Trump presidency and an Obama presidency. Biden will keep agreeing with Republican shit, things will get a modicum better, and then a Republican will win, and things will get two modicum worse, and then that cycle repeats ad fucking nauseum. But hey, when we get New Hitler vs. Democrat Bland Trump in the probably-not-so-distant-future I look forward to being told how we have to rally around Democrat Bland Trump and that if we wanted someone else we should've... voted for someone else in a primary where the Democrats are legally allowed to pick whoever they want regardless of votes. Compelling. Of course your life hasn't been that different. I bet for many people in Germany life was not so different in 1935 than it was in 1931. For the dozens of millions of people who got coverage because of the ACA, the difference is quite fucking radical though. It's not because YOU are not a gay person in the military, or a woman needing an abortion, or a poor person with pre-existing condition that can't afford an insurance that none of it matters. It's for those we vote. Are you sure you're not just hyping up token improvements and ignoring larger negative trends, because doing so preserves a status quo that is comfortable to you personally? This entire line of argument reeks of hypocrisy.
I live in Norway and have zero stake in anything happening in the US. What the hell are you talking about. I mean take 15 seconds to think before insulting people ffs.
|
On October 24 2020 02:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 01:20 LegalLord wrote:On October 24 2020 00:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 21:49 Zambrah wrote:On October 23 2020 20:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 23 2020 20:09 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 20:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 23 2020 20:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 19:50 GreenHorizons wrote:Like, it's not worth choosing between Democrats and Republicans on climate change be because the improvements democrats are aiming for are not enough and so anyway the planet is doomed and it makes no difference. "Significant improvement that might not be enoughwhAtever" or "the worst you can possibly do" are worth the same when you have abandoned all nuances and disregard all constraints. The actual argument is that "not enough" and "worse than that" aren't acceptable for obvious reasons. Yes and the reality is that right now those are the only options. Incorrect. They are the only two with acceptable ranges of outcomes for you (and people that share that belief). Whatever man, this is a loss of time. Go write "Grand socialist revolution!!!!" on your ballot, that's gonna make people's life better. You can be frustrated about your errors if you like, but I'd appreciate you accurately describing what you're arguing against. EDIT: Important note:ACA is not enough, so you won't chose between ACA and nothing. ACA is most likely lost regardless of the outcome of the election. Barrett (who Biden is not opposed to and described as a "very fine person") is set to be confirmed before the election and SCOTUS will take up the related case before inauguration (presuming there is one). This is the sort of thing that makes the "Lul vote dem its all you have" so fucking wretched feeling. They're just NOT as different as theyre made out to be, the differences between them are overblown. Trump has been awful but my life hasnt been that different between a Trump presidency and an Obama presidency. Biden will keep agreeing with Republican shit, things will get a modicum better, and then a Republican will win, and things will get two modicum worse, and then that cycle repeats ad fucking nauseum. But hey, when we get New Hitler vs. Democrat Bland Trump in the probably-not-so-distant-future I look forward to being told how we have to rally around Democrat Bland Trump and that if we wanted someone else we should've... voted for someone else in a primary where the Democrats are legally allowed to pick whoever they want regardless of votes. Compelling. Of course your life hasn't been that different. I bet for many people in Germany life was not so different in 1935 than it was in 1931. For the dozens of millions of people who got coverage because of the ACA, the difference is quite fucking radical though. It's not because YOU are not a gay person in the military, or a woman needing an abortion, or a poor person with pre-existing condition that can't afford an insurance that none of it matters. It's for those we vote. Are you sure you're not just hyping up token improvements and ignoring larger negative trends, because doing so preserves a status quo that is comfortable to you personally? This entire line of argument reeks of hypocrisy. I live in Norway and have zero stake in anything happening in the US. What the hell are you talking about. I mean take 15 seconds to think before insulting people ffs.
Are you under the impression that refutes rather than supports his point?
|
On October 24 2020 01:59 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 01:50 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2020 01:45 Nebuchad wrote:On October 24 2020 01:41 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2020 01:32 Nebuchad wrote:On October 24 2020 01:30 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2020 01:11 Nebuchad wrote:On October 24 2020 01:06 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2020 00:52 Zambrah wrote:On October 24 2020 00:46 Stratos_speAr wrote:
[quote]
No one here has said it is the only way.
Literally no one.
This is a lazy, half-assed strawman you made to try to shift the goal posts. Does it change my point that even in some of your examples the way change actually happened was through things like riots and the bloodiest war in American history? American history is full of examples where action had to be taken beyond voting, if youre pro-riots, etc. in order to accomplish things like more pro-active climate change, dealing with police brutality properly, making sure people are paid living wages, everyone have proper actual healthcare, etc. then we probably don't disagree on much more than how effective voting is. That being said voting is relying on AMERICAN POLITICIANS to do things for the betterment of the populace, and when we encounter things like Biden's climate plans that extend into 2050 I have to ask how you expect these slow changes to hold up to the swift brutal reprisals they'll experience when the next Republican is in office? 2050 might work out if Biden or a Democrat would be president for 30 years, but let's be honest, that isn't going to happen and Republicans are infinitely more efficient at this back and forth than the Democrats are, so what kind of time scale are we really looking at when we factor in Democrats incremental progress + Republican fuckery? Probably beyond the lifespan of anyone on this forum. Its a plan that extends into 2050 because you can't fix climate change in 5 weeks. Fuck me what is with this burning need for instant gratification these days. Fixing climate change over the course of 30 years? fuck that. Incremental change not working by tomorrow? lets have a civil war instead. You come off like GH in this, "have a riot or civil war and everything will be golden on the other side". Yes the American system is fucked, yes working within the system is unlikely to actually fix the system because those in charge are the ones that benefit, and electing a 3e party is unlikely to work either because once they are big enough to win they are the ones that benefit from it continuing (not to mention it would probably require a constitutional amendment and LOL gl getting that passed by 3/4 of states). If you actually want to do something then convince people the system needs to change so that there is a big enough majority that want it to actually put pressure on politicians to do something. But there is little point preaching here, basically everyone agrees the US system is shit. You need to convince the rest of the US that are not as left leaning or have quite so many Europeans in it. The issue with your framing is that it's based on living in a country that is functional. You act as if the US is getting incrementally better from a left vs right standpoint, when it's getting incrementally worse. It's getting better on social issues but it's getting worse for humans in general. You can convince people the system needs to change, and that way they'll put pressure on politicians for things to change! And then the politicians will do nothing about it, like they did when 90+% of Americans wanted more gun control. Because I don't think they actually care all that much. Shandy Hook showed me that, 20 dead children age 6-7 shot at school. The country cried for a minute, shrugged and went on with their lives. When classrooms full of dead children don't cause a country to rise up and say "this far and no further" then I don't know how to react to that other then "apparently they don't care that much". But it did cause the country to rise up. It's just that when Americans rise up, the system doesn't care. Did the country get crippled by strikes and protests for weeks until politicians relented or the economy burned to the ground to the point where corporations made the politicians listen, when the gun reform bills died in Congress? I don't think that happened, so no I don't think Americans "rose up". You have integrated at the same time that in order to get something that you want in America (a democracy), you need riots, otherwise you aren't even trying, AND that the people who are doing the riots, who are mainly to your (far) left, are crazy people who want unreachable things and are getting in the way of incremental progress. This is legit magical thinking. I would not equate decent gun control or police not murder blacks when they feel like it to wanting, to abolish the Electoral collage or changing Capitalism for a Communist utopia. And if the majority of the country would support the latter in the way they seemingly support the former, it wouldn't be an unreachable goal. But last I checked GH's Communist utopia is a little less popular then he might hope. You think abolishing the electoral college is an unpopular idea? I thought it was lower then it apparently is (61%) but its still a very partisan issue 89% of Democrats, 68% of Independents and 23% of Republicans support amending the Constitution to abolish the Electoral College and base the presidential election on the popular vote, according to the poll, which was conducted between August 31 and September 13. and if it takes an amendment and therefor 3/4 state approval you need a 'bit' more then 23% of Republicans to be something that is viable.
And 61% is a far cry from the 90+% who are in favour of something like background checks for all gun sales.
|
On October 24 2020 02:09 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 01:59 Nebuchad wrote:On October 24 2020 01:50 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2020 01:45 Nebuchad wrote:On October 24 2020 01:41 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2020 01:32 Nebuchad wrote:On October 24 2020 01:30 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2020 01:11 Nebuchad wrote:On October 24 2020 01:06 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2020 00:52 Zambrah wrote:
[quote]
Does it change my point that even in some of your examples the way change actually happened was through things like riots and the bloodiest war in American history?
American history is full of examples where action had to be taken beyond voting, if youre pro-riots, etc. in order to accomplish things like more pro-active climate change, dealing with police brutality properly, making sure people are paid living wages, everyone have proper actual healthcare, etc. then we probably don't disagree on much more than how effective voting is.
That being said voting is relying on AMERICAN POLITICIANS to do things for the betterment of the populace, and when we encounter things like Biden's climate plans that extend into 2050 I have to ask how you expect these slow changes to hold up to the swift brutal reprisals they'll experience when the next Republican is in office? 2050 might work out if Biden or a Democrat would be president for 30 years, but let's be honest, that isn't going to happen and Republicans are infinitely more efficient at this back and forth than the Democrats are, so what kind of time scale are we really looking at when we factor in Democrats incremental progress + Republican fuckery? Probably beyond the lifespan of anyone on this forum. Its a plan that extends into 2050 because you can't fix climate change in 5 weeks. Fuck me what is with this burning need for instant gratification these days. Fixing climate change over the course of 30 years? fuck that. Incremental change not working by tomorrow? lets have a civil war instead. You come off like GH in this, "have a riot or civil war and everything will be golden on the other side". Yes the American system is fucked, yes working within the system is unlikely to actually fix the system because those in charge are the ones that benefit, and electing a 3e party is unlikely to work either because once they are big enough to win they are the ones that benefit from it continuing (not to mention it would probably require a constitutional amendment and LOL gl getting that passed by 3/4 of states). If you actually want to do something then convince people the system needs to change so that there is a big enough majority that want it to actually put pressure on politicians to do something. But there is little point preaching here, basically everyone agrees the US system is shit. You need to convince the rest of the US that are not as left leaning or have quite so many Europeans in it. The issue with your framing is that it's based on living in a country that is functional. You act as if the US is getting incrementally better from a left vs right standpoint, when it's getting incrementally worse. It's getting better on social issues but it's getting worse for humans in general. You can convince people the system needs to change, and that way they'll put pressure on politicians for things to change! And then the politicians will do nothing about it, like they did when 90+% of Americans wanted more gun control. Because I don't think they actually care all that much. Shandy Hook showed me that, 20 dead children age 6-7 shot at school. The country cried for a minute, shrugged and went on with their lives. When classrooms full of dead children don't cause a country to rise up and say "this far and no further" then I don't know how to react to that other then "apparently they don't care that much". But it did cause the country to rise up. It's just that when Americans rise up, the system doesn't care. Did the country get crippled by strikes and protests for weeks until politicians relented or the economy burned to the ground to the point where corporations made the politicians listen, when the gun reform bills died in Congress? I don't think that happened, so no I don't think Americans "rose up". You have integrated at the same time that in order to get something that you want in America (a democracy), you need riots, otherwise you aren't even trying, AND that the people who are doing the riots, who are mainly to your (far) left, are crazy people who want unreachable things and are getting in the way of incremental progress. This is legit magical thinking. I would not equate decent gun control or police not murder blacks when they feel like it to wanting, to abolish the Electoral collage or changing Capitalism for a Communist utopia. And if the majority of the country would support the latter in the way they seemingly support the former, it wouldn't be an unreachable goal. But last I checked GH's Communist utopia is a little less popular then he might hope. You think abolishing the electoral college is an unpopular idea? I thought it was lower then it apparently is (61%) but its still a very partisan issue Show nested quote +89% of Democrats, 68% of Independents and 23% of Republicans support amending the Constitution to abolish the Electoral College and base the presidential election on the popular vote, according to the poll, which was conducted between August 31 and September 13. and if it takes an amendment and therefor 3/4 state approval you need a 'bit' more then 23% of Republicans to be something that is viable. And 61% is a far cry from the 90+% who are in favour of something like background checks for all gun sales.
Looks like women will have to chalk up abortion rights as too pie in the sky since it's only got 61% support and is very partisan.
www.pewforum.org
|
|
|
On October 24 2020 02:07 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 02:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 24 2020 01:20 LegalLord wrote:On October 24 2020 00:08 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 21:49 Zambrah wrote:On October 23 2020 20:12 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 23 2020 20:09 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 20:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On October 23 2020 20:04 Biff The Understudy wrote:On October 23 2020 19:50 GreenHorizons wrote:
[quote]
The actual argument is that "not enough" and "worse than that" aren't acceptable for obvious reasons. Yes and the reality is that right now those are the only options. Incorrect. They are the only two with acceptable ranges of outcomes for you (and people that share that belief). Whatever man, this is a loss of time. Go write "Grand socialist revolution!!!!" on your ballot, that's gonna make people's life better. You can be frustrated about your errors if you like, but I'd appreciate you accurately describing what you're arguing against. EDIT: Important note:ACA is not enough, so you won't chose between ACA and nothing. ACA is most likely lost regardless of the outcome of the election. Barrett (who Biden is not opposed to and described as a "very fine person") is set to be confirmed before the election and SCOTUS will take up the related case before inauguration (presuming there is one). This is the sort of thing that makes the "Lul vote dem its all you have" so fucking wretched feeling. They're just NOT as different as theyre made out to be, the differences between them are overblown. Trump has been awful but my life hasnt been that different between a Trump presidency and an Obama presidency. Biden will keep agreeing with Republican shit, things will get a modicum better, and then a Republican will win, and things will get two modicum worse, and then that cycle repeats ad fucking nauseum. But hey, when we get New Hitler vs. Democrat Bland Trump in the probably-not-so-distant-future I look forward to being told how we have to rally around Democrat Bland Trump and that if we wanted someone else we should've... voted for someone else in a primary where the Democrats are legally allowed to pick whoever they want regardless of votes. Compelling. Of course your life hasn't been that different. I bet for many people in Germany life was not so different in 1935 than it was in 1931. For the dozens of millions of people who got coverage because of the ACA, the difference is quite fucking radical though. It's not because YOU are not a gay person in the military, or a woman needing an abortion, or a poor person with pre-existing condition that can't afford an insurance that none of it matters. It's for those we vote. Are you sure you're not just hyping up token improvements and ignoring larger negative trends, because doing so preserves a status quo that is comfortable to you personally? This entire line of argument reeks of hypocrisy. I live in Norway and have zero stake in anything happening in the US. What the hell are you talking about. I mean take 15 seconds to think before insulting people ffs. Are you under the impression that refutes rather than supports his point?
I am hypocritical because the status quo is personally comfortable to me because I have personally no stakes in US politics. That makes perfect sense.
You guys need to get your ad hominem together. You forgot to call me racist by the way, I'm disappointed.
|
On October 24 2020 02:09 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 01:59 Nebuchad wrote:On October 24 2020 01:50 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2020 01:45 Nebuchad wrote:On October 24 2020 01:41 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2020 01:32 Nebuchad wrote:On October 24 2020 01:30 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2020 01:11 Nebuchad wrote:On October 24 2020 01:06 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2020 00:52 Zambrah wrote:
[quote]
Does it change my point that even in some of your examples the way change actually happened was through things like riots and the bloodiest war in American history?
American history is full of examples where action had to be taken beyond voting, if youre pro-riots, etc. in order to accomplish things like more pro-active climate change, dealing with police brutality properly, making sure people are paid living wages, everyone have proper actual healthcare, etc. then we probably don't disagree on much more than how effective voting is.
That being said voting is relying on AMERICAN POLITICIANS to do things for the betterment of the populace, and when we encounter things like Biden's climate plans that extend into 2050 I have to ask how you expect these slow changes to hold up to the swift brutal reprisals they'll experience when the next Republican is in office? 2050 might work out if Biden or a Democrat would be president for 30 years, but let's be honest, that isn't going to happen and Republicans are infinitely more efficient at this back and forth than the Democrats are, so what kind of time scale are we really looking at when we factor in Democrats incremental progress + Republican fuckery? Probably beyond the lifespan of anyone on this forum. Its a plan that extends into 2050 because you can't fix climate change in 5 weeks. Fuck me what is with this burning need for instant gratification these days. Fixing climate change over the course of 30 years? fuck that. Incremental change not working by tomorrow? lets have a civil war instead. You come off like GH in this, "have a riot or civil war and everything will be golden on the other side". Yes the American system is fucked, yes working within the system is unlikely to actually fix the system because those in charge are the ones that benefit, and electing a 3e party is unlikely to work either because once they are big enough to win they are the ones that benefit from it continuing (not to mention it would probably require a constitutional amendment and LOL gl getting that passed by 3/4 of states). If you actually want to do something then convince people the system needs to change so that there is a big enough majority that want it to actually put pressure on politicians to do something. But there is little point preaching here, basically everyone agrees the US system is shit. You need to convince the rest of the US that are not as left leaning or have quite so many Europeans in it. The issue with your framing is that it's based on living in a country that is functional. You act as if the US is getting incrementally better from a left vs right standpoint, when it's getting incrementally worse. It's getting better on social issues but it's getting worse for humans in general. You can convince people the system needs to change, and that way they'll put pressure on politicians for things to change! And then the politicians will do nothing about it, like they did when 90+% of Americans wanted more gun control. Because I don't think they actually care all that much. Shandy Hook showed me that, 20 dead children age 6-7 shot at school. The country cried for a minute, shrugged and went on with their lives. When classrooms full of dead children don't cause a country to rise up and say "this far and no further" then I don't know how to react to that other then "apparently they don't care that much". But it did cause the country to rise up. It's just that when Americans rise up, the system doesn't care. Did the country get crippled by strikes and protests for weeks until politicians relented or the economy burned to the ground to the point where corporations made the politicians listen, when the gun reform bills died in Congress? I don't think that happened, so no I don't think Americans "rose up". You have integrated at the same time that in order to get something that you want in America (a democracy), you need riots, otherwise you aren't even trying, AND that the people who are doing the riots, who are mainly to your (far) left, are crazy people who want unreachable things and are getting in the way of incremental progress. This is legit magical thinking. I would not equate decent gun control or police not murder blacks when they feel like it to wanting, to abolish the Electoral collage or changing Capitalism for a Communist utopia. And if the majority of the country would support the latter in the way they seemingly support the former, it wouldn't be an unreachable goal. But last I checked GH's Communist utopia is a little less popular then he might hope. You think abolishing the electoral college is an unpopular idea? And 61% is a far cry from the 90+% who are in favour of something like background checks for all gun sales.
Fair, but if you need a riot to get something that has 90+% passed anyway, does the difference really matter?
|
On October 24 2020 02:14 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 02:09 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2020 01:59 Nebuchad wrote:On October 24 2020 01:50 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2020 01:45 Nebuchad wrote:On October 24 2020 01:41 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2020 01:32 Nebuchad wrote:On October 24 2020 01:30 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2020 01:11 Nebuchad wrote:On October 24 2020 01:06 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]Its a plan that extends into 2050 because you can't fix climate change in 5 weeks.
Fuck me what is with this burning need for instant gratification these days. Fixing climate change over the course of 30 years? fuck that.
Incremental change not working by tomorrow? lets have a civil war instead.
You come off like GH in this, "have a riot or civil war and everything will be golden on the other side".
Yes the American system is fucked, yes working within the system is unlikely to actually fix the system because those in charge are the ones that benefit, and electing a 3e party is unlikely to work either because once they are big enough to win they are the ones that benefit from it continuing (not to mention it would probably require a constitutional amendment and LOL gl getting that passed by 3/4 of states).
If you actually want to do something then convince people the system needs to change so that there is a big enough majority that want it to actually put pressure on politicians to do something.
But there is little point preaching here, basically everyone agrees the US system is shit. You need to convince the rest of the US that are not as left leaning or have quite so many Europeans in it. The issue with your framing is that it's based on living in a country that is functional. You act as if the US is getting incrementally better from a left vs right standpoint, when it's getting incrementally worse. It's getting better on social issues but it's getting worse for humans in general. You can convince people the system needs to change, and that way they'll put pressure on politicians for things to change! And then the politicians will do nothing about it, like they did when 90+% of Americans wanted more gun control. Because I don't think they actually care all that much. Shandy Hook showed me that, 20 dead children age 6-7 shot at school. The country cried for a minute, shrugged and went on with their lives. When classrooms full of dead children don't cause a country to rise up and say "this far and no further" then I don't know how to react to that other then "apparently they don't care that much". But it did cause the country to rise up. It's just that when Americans rise up, the system doesn't care. Did the country get crippled by strikes and protests for weeks until politicians relented or the economy burned to the ground to the point where corporations made the politicians listen, when the gun reform bills died in Congress? I don't think that happened, so no I don't think Americans "rose up". You have integrated at the same time that in order to get something that you want in America (a democracy), you need riots, otherwise you aren't even trying, AND that the people who are doing the riots, who are mainly to your (far) left, are crazy people who want unreachable things and are getting in the way of incremental progress. This is legit magical thinking. I would not equate decent gun control or police not murder blacks when they feel like it to wanting, to abolish the Electoral collage or changing Capitalism for a Communist utopia. And if the majority of the country would support the latter in the way they seemingly support the former, it wouldn't be an unreachable goal. But last I checked GH's Communist utopia is a little less popular then he might hope. You think abolishing the electoral college is an unpopular idea? And 61% is a far cry from the 90+% who are in favour of something like background checks for all gun sales. Fair, but if you need a riot to get something that has 90+% passed anyway, does the difference really matter? This question doesn't make any sense.
|
|
|
On October 24 2020 02:14 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 02:09 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2020 01:59 Nebuchad wrote:On October 24 2020 01:50 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2020 01:45 Nebuchad wrote:On October 24 2020 01:41 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2020 01:32 Nebuchad wrote:On October 24 2020 01:30 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2020 01:11 Nebuchad wrote:On October 24 2020 01:06 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]Its a plan that extends into 2050 because you can't fix climate change in 5 weeks.
Fuck me what is with this burning need for instant gratification these days. Fixing climate change over the course of 30 years? fuck that.
Incremental change not working by tomorrow? lets have a civil war instead.
You come off like GH in this, "have a riot or civil war and everything will be golden on the other side".
Yes the American system is fucked, yes working within the system is unlikely to actually fix the system because those in charge are the ones that benefit, and electing a 3e party is unlikely to work either because once they are big enough to win they are the ones that benefit from it continuing (not to mention it would probably require a constitutional amendment and LOL gl getting that passed by 3/4 of states).
If you actually want to do something then convince people the system needs to change so that there is a big enough majority that want it to actually put pressure on politicians to do something.
But there is little point preaching here, basically everyone agrees the US system is shit. You need to convince the rest of the US that are not as left leaning or have quite so many Europeans in it. The issue with your framing is that it's based on living in a country that is functional. You act as if the US is getting incrementally better from a left vs right standpoint, when it's getting incrementally worse. It's getting better on social issues but it's getting worse for humans in general. You can convince people the system needs to change, and that way they'll put pressure on politicians for things to change! And then the politicians will do nothing about it, like they did when 90+% of Americans wanted more gun control. Because I don't think they actually care all that much. Shandy Hook showed me that, 20 dead children age 6-7 shot at school. The country cried for a minute, shrugged and went on with their lives. When classrooms full of dead children don't cause a country to rise up and say "this far and no further" then I don't know how to react to that other then "apparently they don't care that much". But it did cause the country to rise up. It's just that when Americans rise up, the system doesn't care. Did the country get crippled by strikes and protests for weeks until politicians relented or the economy burned to the ground to the point where corporations made the politicians listen, when the gun reform bills died in Congress? I don't think that happened, so no I don't think Americans "rose up". You have integrated at the same time that in order to get something that you want in America (a democracy), you need riots, otherwise you aren't even trying, AND that the people who are doing the riots, who are mainly to your (far) left, are crazy people who want unreachable things and are getting in the way of incremental progress. This is legit magical thinking. I would not equate decent gun control or police not murder blacks when they feel like it to wanting, to abolish the Electoral collage or changing Capitalism for a Communist utopia. And if the majority of the country would support the latter in the way they seemingly support the former, it wouldn't be an unreachable goal. But last I checked GH's Communist utopia is a little less popular then he might hope. You think abolishing the electoral college is an unpopular idea? And 61% is a far cry from the 90+% who are in favour of something like background checks for all gun sales. Fair, but if you need a riot to get something that has 90+% passed anyway, does the difference really matter? Riots need broad public support to work, so yes??
Not quite sure what you mean with this question.
On October 24 2020 02:11 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 02:09 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2020 01:59 Nebuchad wrote:On October 24 2020 01:50 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2020 01:45 Nebuchad wrote:On October 24 2020 01:41 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2020 01:32 Nebuchad wrote:On October 24 2020 01:30 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2020 01:11 Nebuchad wrote:On October 24 2020 01:06 Gorsameth wrote:
[quote]Its a plan that extends into 2050 because you can't fix climate change in 5 weeks.
Fuck me what is with this burning need for instant gratification these days. Fixing climate change over the course of 30 years? fuck that.
Incremental change not working by tomorrow? lets have a civil war instead.
You come off like GH in this, "have a riot or civil war and everything will be golden on the other side".
Yes the American system is fucked, yes working within the system is unlikely to actually fix the system because those in charge are the ones that benefit, and electing a 3e party is unlikely to work either because once they are big enough to win they are the ones that benefit from it continuing (not to mention it would probably require a constitutional amendment and LOL gl getting that passed by 3/4 of states).
If you actually want to do something then convince people the system needs to change so that there is a big enough majority that want it to actually put pressure on politicians to do something.
But there is little point preaching here, basically everyone agrees the US system is shit. You need to convince the rest of the US that are not as left leaning or have quite so many Europeans in it. The issue with your framing is that it's based on living in a country that is functional. You act as if the US is getting incrementally better from a left vs right standpoint, when it's getting incrementally worse. It's getting better on social issues but it's getting worse for humans in general. You can convince people the system needs to change, and that way they'll put pressure on politicians for things to change! And then the politicians will do nothing about it, like they did when 90+% of Americans wanted more gun control. Because I don't think they actually care all that much. Shandy Hook showed me that, 20 dead children age 6-7 shot at school. The country cried for a minute, shrugged and went on with their lives. When classrooms full of dead children don't cause a country to rise up and say "this far and no further" then I don't know how to react to that other then "apparently they don't care that much". But it did cause the country to rise up. It's just that when Americans rise up, the system doesn't care. Did the country get crippled by strikes and protests for weeks until politicians relented or the economy burned to the ground to the point where corporations made the politicians listen, when the gun reform bills died in Congress? I don't think that happened, so no I don't think Americans "rose up". You have integrated at the same time that in order to get something that you want in America (a democracy), you need riots, otherwise you aren't even trying, AND that the people who are doing the riots, who are mainly to your (far) left, are crazy people who want unreachable things and are getting in the way of incremental progress. This is legit magical thinking. I would not equate decent gun control or police not murder blacks when they feel like it to wanting, to abolish the Electoral collage or changing Capitalism for a Communist utopia. And if the majority of the country would support the latter in the way they seemingly support the former, it wouldn't be an unreachable goal. But last I checked GH's Communist utopia is a little less popular then he might hope. You think abolishing the electoral college is an unpopular idea? I thought it was lower then it apparently is (61%) but its still a very partisan issue 89% of Democrats, 68% of Independents and 23% of Republicans support amending the Constitution to abolish the Electoral College and base the presidential election on the popular vote, according to the poll, which was conducted between August 31 and September 13. and if it takes an amendment and therefor 3/4 state approval you need a 'bit' more then 23% of Republicans to be something that is viable. And 61% is a far cry from the 90+% who are in favour of something like background checks for all gun sales. Looks like women will have to chalk up abortion rights as too pie in the sky since it's only got 61% support and is very partisan. www.pewforum.org Are you trying to equate basic human rights to a voting system?
|
On October 24 2020 02:20 Dangermousecatdog wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 02:14 Nebuchad wrote:On October 24 2020 02:09 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2020 01:59 Nebuchad wrote:On October 24 2020 01:50 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2020 01:45 Nebuchad wrote:On October 24 2020 01:41 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2020 01:32 Nebuchad wrote:On October 24 2020 01:30 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2020 01:11 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]The issue with your framing is that it's based on living in a country that is functional.
You act as if the US is getting incrementally better from a left vs right standpoint, when it's getting incrementally worse. It's getting better on social issues but it's getting worse for humans in general.
You can convince people the system needs to change, and that way they'll put pressure on politicians for things to change! And then the politicians will do nothing about it, like they did when 90+% of Americans wanted more gun control. Because I don't think they actually care all that much. Shandy Hook showed me that, 20 dead children age 6-7 shot at school. The country cried for a minute, shrugged and went on with their lives. When classrooms full of dead children don't cause a country to rise up and say "this far and no further" then I don't know how to react to that other then "apparently they don't care that much". But it did cause the country to rise up. It's just that when Americans rise up, the system doesn't care. Did the country get crippled by strikes and protests for weeks until politicians relented or the economy burned to the ground to the point where corporations made the politicians listen, when the gun reform bills died in Congress? I don't think that happened, so no I don't think Americans "rose up". You have integrated at the same time that in order to get something that you want in America (a democracy), you need riots, otherwise you aren't even trying, AND that the people who are doing the riots, who are mainly to your (far) left, are crazy people who want unreachable things and are getting in the way of incremental progress. This is legit magical thinking. I would not equate decent gun control or police not murder blacks when they feel like it to wanting, to abolish the Electoral collage or changing Capitalism for a Communist utopia. And if the majority of the country would support the latter in the way they seemingly support the former, it wouldn't be an unreachable goal. But last I checked GH's Communist utopia is a little less popular then he might hope. You think abolishing the electoral college is an unpopular idea? And 61% is a far cry from the 90+% who are in favour of something like background checks for all gun sales. Fair, but if you need a riot to get something that has 90+% passed anyway, does the difference really matter? This question doesn't make any sense.
Hi there DMCD!
Gorsameth started this argument by explaining to us that if we wanted leftist stuff to happen in the US, we needed to convince more people to be on our side, that way things would happen.
I pointed out that there are things that have 90%+ support and still aren't done, so I thought his faith in convincing people was misplaced in the case of the US.
He said that this shows the US doesn't actually want to ban guns because if they did they would riot.
I think this coincides with my argument, as it shows Gorsameth has integrated that you need a riot to get things done even if you have 90% support.
He says there's a difference between electoral college and gun control based on popularity.
I ask him if that difference is really relevant since the most popular stuff won't get passed either without riots.
I hope things are clearer for you now.
Regards,
Nebuchad
|
On October 24 2020 02:22 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 02:14 Nebuchad wrote:On October 24 2020 02:09 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2020 01:59 Nebuchad wrote:On October 24 2020 01:50 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2020 01:45 Nebuchad wrote:On October 24 2020 01:41 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2020 01:32 Nebuchad wrote:On October 24 2020 01:30 Gorsameth wrote:On October 24 2020 01:11 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]The issue with your framing is that it's based on living in a country that is functional.
You act as if the US is getting incrementally better from a left vs right standpoint, when it's getting incrementally worse. It's getting better on social issues but it's getting worse for humans in general.
You can convince people the system needs to change, and that way they'll put pressure on politicians for things to change! And then the politicians will do nothing about it, like they did when 90+% of Americans wanted more gun control. Because I don't think they actually care all that much. Shandy Hook showed me that, 20 dead children age 6-7 shot at school. The country cried for a minute, shrugged and went on with their lives. When classrooms full of dead children don't cause a country to rise up and say "this far and no further" then I don't know how to react to that other then "apparently they don't care that much". But it did cause the country to rise up. It's just that when Americans rise up, the system doesn't care. Did the country get crippled by strikes and protests for weeks until politicians relented or the economy burned to the ground to the point where corporations made the politicians listen, when the gun reform bills died in Congress? I don't think that happened, so no I don't think Americans "rose up". You have integrated at the same time that in order to get something that you want in America (a democracy), you need riots, otherwise you aren't even trying, AND that the people who are doing the riots, who are mainly to your (far) left, are crazy people who want unreachable things and are getting in the way of incremental progress. This is legit magical thinking. I would not equate decent gun control or police not murder blacks when they feel like it to wanting, to abolish the Electoral collage or changing Capitalism for a Communist utopia. And if the majority of the country would support the latter in the way they seemingly support the former, it wouldn't be an unreachable goal. But last I checked GH's Communist utopia is a little less popular then he might hope. You think abolishing the electoral college is an unpopular idea? And 61% is a far cry from the 90+% who are in favour of something like background checks for all gun sales. Fair, but if you need a riot to get something that has 90+% passed anyway, does the difference really matter? Riots need broad public support to work, so yes?? Not quite sure what you mean with this question.
Do riots need broad public support to work? I seem to remember MLK had way less than that.
Regardless, 61% is pretty broad. It's higher than most election results worldwide.
|
United States44368 Posts
Here is a reminder that after starting a trade war with a large number of tariffs on Chinese imports Trump still doesn’t know what a tariff is.
"China is paying," Trump said. "They're paying billions and billions of dollars. I just gave $28 billion to our farmers — "
Taxpayers' money," Democratic nominee Joe Biden interjected.
"It was China — " Trump paused. "It's what?"
"Taxpayers' money," Biden reiterated. "It didn't come from China."
"Yeah, you know who the taxpayer is? It's called China," Trump crowed. "China paid $28 million, and you know what they did to pay it, Joe? They devalued their currency, and they also paid up. And you know who got the money? Our farmers. Our great farmers, because they were targeted."
Can any Trump supporters defend this? How is it okay that we have a leader enacting policy that he clearly doesn’t understand? It’s not about whether you support the tariffs or not, it’s about whether the guy writing the tariffs should be required to know what a tariff is.
For the record, it’s basically a surcharge tax on Chinese goods sold in the US to make them more expensive for US consumers and therefore less desirable relative to US manufactured goods.
|
Trump supporters also claim $28 billion to farmers isn't socialist.
|
On October 24 2020 03:05 ShoCkeyy wrote:
Trump supporters also claim $28 billion to farmers isn't socialist.
As soon as you mention farm subsidies to rural folks, they foam at the mouth and scream "do you like eating? THANK a farmer for that!!"
They basically see themselves as some sort of divine providers for the planet, as if all the other parts necessary for a functioning society aren't actually necessary.
|
And that is just one of many examples where he shows total lack of understanding yet complete confidence in dictating policy unilaterally. That's why it would be nice to have an actual debate to show just how feeble his grasp of the concepts are. I'd love to see Trump have to spend an hour going in to fine detail about the science of climate change, or the healthcare system or any other complex topic where he acts like an expert yet spouts total bullshit.
|
On October 24 2020 03:05 ShoCkeyy wrote:
Trump supporters also claim $28 billion to farmers isn't socialist.
It isn't (though I doubt they agree with why). It's liberalism or "welfare capitalism".
|
|
|
Its a general thing not limited to just farmers.
They want to the GOP to take away the welfare of those do nothing liberals who just sit on their couch all day, but not touch their own welfare that they get despite working hard.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
