|
On October 24 2020 14:04 greenturtle23 wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 13:51 LegalLord wrote:On October 24 2020 13:30 greenturtle23 wrote:On October 24 2020 13:25 LegalLord wrote:On October 24 2020 09:52 greenturtle23 wrote:
2. Gay marriage. Well I suppose you could say the Democrats supported that. I mean, prominent Democrats like Hillary Clinton only did so when it became a popular position, and never when it would've been an unpopular but important idealistic choice, but I suppose that by 2016 they were on the "right side" of that issue. Maybe a couple decades from now they'll be the flag-bearer-in-hindsight of a currently unpopular group facing social injustice. GH certainly could say a thing or two on that one.
This is true, but it is better than the Republican side of opposing it despite being popular. They oppose it because said position is popular with their own core support base (mainly evangelicals). True, Democrats caught on once their own base became overwhelmingly in favor, but "social justice - if it polls well" is a hilariously uninspiring endorsement for anyone who isn't just looking to contort the facts to justify the status quo. I mean you do have people like Bernie Sanders who supported it since 1995, back when it was politically harmful to do so, so it's at least theoretically possible to be ahead of the public opinion. Right now, Democrats seem more concerned with trying to prove that they're good Republicans so the "conservatives who don't like Trump" base will vote for them than with making any actual forward progress. I agree with all of that which is why when the choice was Bernie vs Biden I choose Bernie. He unfortunately lost. Now the choice is between Biden and Trump. It is an easy choice. I don't begrudge anyone for choosing to vote Biden now that it's down to him or Trump. That's not the choice I made (I ultimately went with 3rd party), but I don't think everyone needs to do the same thing I do. Being particularly holier-than-thou about how you're one of the bad people if you don't make the "only acceptable choice" of voting Biden is grossly misguided, though. I don't view people hat don't vote for Biden as bad people. I think voting for him is the correct choice, but I understand that others may not see it that way. In a non swing state it doesn't even mater. Let's hope a Bernie or Bernie like candidate comes along in 2024. Biden may be too old to run again even if he wins his year.
I believe Biden has no real intentions of seeking reelection after his term.
If Shahid Buttar dethrones Pelosi I'll be a bit more hopeful in successful progressive challenges to Democrats in the near future though, so heres to hoping Pelosi gets the boot.
Bernie should stop trying, hes too old, I appreciate the man but we're going to need new blood in the electoral realm, and GOD HELP ME if the new blood winds up having to be Pete fucking Buttigieg and Kamala god damned Harris.
|
if Biden stays true to his word that he is a transitional president to the next generation.
Harris, O'Rourke, Booker, Bennet, Gillibrand, Klobuchar, Delaney, Schiff, etc. That's who comes after the
Clinton/Biden/Pelosi generation. You're looking at skipping 1-2 generations (~13-30 years) to get to AOC's and Ilhan Omar's.
Even then you still have the Buttigiegs and Swalwells, carrying the Biden'esque torch into that generation.
|
On October 24 2020 09:02 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 08:59 Cricketer12 wrote:On October 24 2020 08:52 JimmiC wrote:On October 24 2020 08:51 Cricketer12 wrote:On October 24 2020 08:50 JimmiC wrote:On October 24 2020 08:39 GreenHorizons wrote:as long as you don't pretend that you care about the people who are losing their lifeline when the ACA or Roe vs Wade are repelled. Just think it's important to point out again that those ships have sailed. Barrett is a "fine person" that Biden doesn't object to being on the supreme court in herself. His objection is simply to the process (which was heard, rejected, and moved past). So the 6-3 conservative court is done (just a matter of going through the motions now). Democrats can't get the court back for a loooong time without rejecting Biden's opposition to removing the filibuster and stuffing the court. Which is also what they'd have to do to get legislation passed and to stand up to SCOTUS scrutiny. The notion that people are supporting/voting for Biden to protect those things reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of how the US government works. Lots of presumption them. There is nothing Biden can do about Barrett right now. Throwing a tantrum wouldn't do anything. Since we can't go back in time and unvote Trump, best you can do is take all 3 levels of government and make there be huge consequences for trying to go back on it.
That battle is far from done, intact it has not started. What exactly do you mean by this? Sorry, poorly written. President, senate and congress. Ahh thought you were alluding to packing the courts I do think that will be one of the options if the Republicans push for overturning it. I also think they will have many other options. Also, if the Reps get it handed to them in this election I'm not sure they will do anything so unpopular after just losing big. But the big point is presumptions are not facts, lots to happen before that one is lost! If they just lost big and are on the way out, what do they have to lose by doing something unpopular?
I fully expect the Republicans to ram through the SC appointment after the election when there is no prize to pay for another 2 years and those who already lost have nothing left to lose.
|
I just saw Biden has spent 582 millon dollars on his campaign, which is a new record and way more than Trump.
I want Trump out of office more than anyone, but that money comes from somewhere, and it is naive to believe they will be content not getting anything in return.
Will the Democrats even try to reform the money game (organized corruption by European standards) when they clearly crush the Republicans in it?
The US democratic problems seem very deep, and go far beyond GOP and Trump.
|
On October 24 2020 18:24 Slydie wrote:
I just saw Biden has spent 582 millon dollars on his campaign, which is a new record and way more than Trump.
Nice.
Should be noted though that Mike Bloomberg spent $460 million on his primary campaign in the 1st Q and it didn't help him.He must be hoping the 100 million he is now spending in Florida to help Biden will do more although if the recent polls there are any indication it's another flop.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/13/us/politics/bloomberg-florida-biden.html
|
|
|
On October 24 2020 23:24 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 19:05 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On October 24 2020 18:24 Slydie wrote:
I just saw Biden has spent 582 millon dollars on his campaign, which is a new record and way more than Trump.
Nice. Should be noted though that Mike Bloomberg spent $460 million on his primary campaign in the 1st Q and it didn't help him.He must be hoping the 100 million he is now spending in Florida to help Biden will do more although if the recent polls there are any indication it's another flop. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/13/us/politics/bloomberg-florida-biden.html I read it was money well spent because Trump had to pull a bunch of money from the battle ground states in the north to make sure he could try to hold Florida.
That could be true, Trump is low on cash and 100% can not win unless he wins FL.
Then again he cant win unless he wins PA too and polls there seem to have him getting crushe
|
On October 25 2020 00:20 IyMoon wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 23:24 JimmiC wrote:On October 24 2020 19:05 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On October 24 2020 18:24 Slydie wrote:
I just saw Biden has spent 582 millon dollars on his campaign, which is a new record and way more than Trump.
Nice. Should be noted though that Mike Bloomberg spent $460 million on his primary campaign in the 1st Q and it didn't help him.He must be hoping the 100 million he is now spending in Florida to help Biden will do more although if the recent polls there are any indication it's another flop. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/13/us/politics/bloomberg-florida-biden.html I read it was money well spent because Trump had to pull a bunch of money from the battle ground states in the north to make sure he could try to hold Florida. That could be true, Trump is low on cash and 100% can not win unless he wins FL. Then again he cant win unless he wins PA too and polls there seem to have him getting crushe
The race has tightened in PA and FL.
![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/71jJD5o.png) ![[image loading]](https://i.imgur.com/Z0Xg6y8.png)
Say what you want about pollsters updating their likely voters models post-2016, but Trump beat a Hillary +4 PA lead in 2016. He'll need to do even better for unexpected turnout this time around, and Biden close to Hillary levels of reduced turnout.
Trump taking FL and PA are my most likely route to a 269-269 tie.
|
On October 25 2020 01:16 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2020 00:20 IyMoon wrote:On October 24 2020 23:24 JimmiC wrote:On October 24 2020 19:05 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On October 24 2020 18:24 Slydie wrote:
I just saw Biden has spent 582 millon dollars on his campaign, which is a new record and way more than Trump.
Nice. Should be noted though that Mike Bloomberg spent $460 million on his primary campaign in the 1st Q and it didn't help him.He must be hoping the 100 million he is now spending in Florida to help Biden will do more although if the recent polls there are any indication it's another flop. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/13/us/politics/bloomberg-florida-biden.html I read it was money well spent because Trump had to pull a bunch of money from the battle ground states in the north to make sure he could try to hold Florida. That could be true, Trump is low on cash and 100% can not win unless he wins FL. Then again he cant win unless he wins PA too and polls there seem to have him getting crushe The race has tightened in PA and FL. Say what you want about pollsters updating their likely voters models post-2016, but Trump beat a Hillary +4 PA lead in 2016. He'll need to do even better for unexpected turnout this time around, and Biden close to Hillary levels of reduced turnout. Trump taking FL and PA are my most likely route to a 269-269 tie.
FL and PA are absolutely in play for both candidates, and I think that Trump's path to victory is contingent upon winning them both (which, again, is totally possible). I think that if Biden wins either one of these (or both), he'll win the electoral college. Thoughts? Do you see a plausible path to victory for Trump if he loses at least one of these states?
|
|
|
|
|
On October 25 2020 01:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2020 01:16 Danglars wrote:On October 25 2020 00:20 IyMoon wrote:On October 24 2020 23:24 JimmiC wrote:On October 24 2020 19:05 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On October 24 2020 18:24 Slydie wrote:
I just saw Biden has spent 582 millon dollars on his campaign, which is a new record and way more than Trump.
Nice. Should be noted though that Mike Bloomberg spent $460 million on his primary campaign in the 1st Q and it didn't help him.He must be hoping the 100 million he is now spending in Florida to help Biden will do more although if the recent polls there are any indication it's another flop. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/13/us/politics/bloomberg-florida-biden.html I read it was money well spent because Trump had to pull a bunch of money from the battle ground states in the north to make sure he could try to hold Florida. That could be true, Trump is low on cash and 100% can not win unless he wins FL. Then again he cant win unless he wins PA too and polls there seem to have him getting crushe The race has tightened in PA and FL. Say what you want about pollsters updating their likely voters models post-2016, but Trump beat a Hillary +4 PA lead in 2016. He'll need to do even better for unexpected turnout this time around, and Biden close to Hillary levels of reduced turnout. Trump taking FL and PA are my most likely route to a 269-269 tie. FL and PA are absolutely in play for both candidates, and I think that Trump's path to victory is contingent upon winning them both (which, again, is totally possible). I think that if Biden wins either one of these (or both), he'll win the electoral college. Thoughts? Do you see a plausible path to victory for Trump if he loses at least one of these states?
While I give you florida is in play PA is not at least for now. Not only is Biden around 50 % but you have to take the whole rust belt into account. There is most no Scenario where only PA goes red by itself. If the rust belt goes red it is going together and Biden is killing it in all of them.
|
On October 25 2020 01:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2020 01:16 Danglars wrote:On October 25 2020 00:20 IyMoon wrote:On October 24 2020 23:24 JimmiC wrote:On October 24 2020 19:05 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On October 24 2020 18:24 Slydie wrote:
I just saw Biden has spent 582 millon dollars on his campaign, which is a new record and way more than Trump.
Nice. Should be noted though that Mike Bloomberg spent $460 million on his primary campaign in the 1st Q and it didn't help him.He must be hoping the 100 million he is now spending in Florida to help Biden will do more although if the recent polls there are any indication it's another flop. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/13/us/politics/bloomberg-florida-biden.html I read it was money well spent because Trump had to pull a bunch of money from the battle ground states in the north to make sure he could try to hold Florida. That could be true, Trump is low on cash and 100% can not win unless he wins FL. Then again he cant win unless he wins PA too and polls there seem to have him getting crushe The race has tightened in PA and FL. Say what you want about pollsters updating their likely voters models post-2016, but Trump beat a Hillary +4 PA lead in 2016. He'll need to do even better for unexpected turnout this time around, and Biden close to Hillary levels of reduced turnout. Trump taking FL and PA are my most likely route to a 269-269 tie. FL and PA are absolutely in play for both candidates, and I think that Trump's path to victory is contingent upon winning them both (which, again, is totally possible). I think that if Biden wins either one of these (or both), he'll win the electoral college. Thoughts? Do you see a plausible path to victory for Trump if he loses at least one of these states?
For comparison, the 538 model shows no tightening in PA (87/13) and only small tightening in FL (70/30 vs 71/29). FL is in play, but PA is almost out of reach.
RCP is better at showing faster trends but has the issue that it will overweight frequent or lower accuracy pollsters in comparison.
|
On October 25 2020 01:26 DarkPlasmaBall wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2020 01:16 Danglars wrote:On October 25 2020 00:20 IyMoon wrote:On October 24 2020 23:24 JimmiC wrote:On October 24 2020 19:05 iPlaY.NettleS wrote:On October 24 2020 18:24 Slydie wrote:
I just saw Biden has spent 582 millon dollars on his campaign, which is a new record and way more than Trump.
Nice. Should be noted though that Mike Bloomberg spent $460 million on his primary campaign in the 1st Q and it didn't help him.He must be hoping the 100 million he is now spending in Florida to help Biden will do more although if the recent polls there are any indication it's another flop. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/13/us/politics/bloomberg-florida-biden.html I read it was money well spent because Trump had to pull a bunch of money from the battle ground states in the north to make sure he could try to hold Florida. That could be true, Trump is low on cash and 100% can not win unless he wins FL. Then again he cant win unless he wins PA too and polls there seem to have him getting crushe The race has tightened in PA and FL. Say what you want about pollsters updating their likely voters models post-2016, but Trump beat a Hillary +4 PA lead in 2016. He'll need to do even better for unexpected turnout this time around, and Biden close to Hillary levels of reduced turnout. Trump taking FL and PA are my most likely route to a 269-269 tie. FL and PA are absolutely in play for both candidates, and I think that Trump's path to victory is contingent upon winning them both (which, again, is totally possible). I think that if Biden wins either one of these (or both), he'll win the electoral college. Thoughts? Do you see a plausible path to victory for Trump if he loses at least one of these states?
I don't see him winning unless he takes both. This is heavily reliant on the polling gap and stability over time. The kind of sweeps of +1-10 Dems he'll have to make if he loses one of those two are just too unbelievable. (Then again, a 2016 win of WI-MI-PA was so unbelievable that I second guess myself a lot more these days)
I'd appreciate a few more polls released before election day to see if any races got better with that second debate performance.
Also:
Scotusblog has a portal for election lawsuits. The only one I've seen break national news recently is PA's dropping the matched signature requirement for absentee ballots.
In light of all the consternation on court packing and ACB, there's a new podcast started by McConnell's old Chief of Staff and campaign manager. It might be worth a listen for people that wonder how some Republicans about as far right of center as this forum is left of center think about the history of the legislative court battles leading up to Kavanaugh. Playable from Apple's website, "It's Happening" 20 minutes. This comes with a hat tip to dearly departed Doodsmack's efforts to bring inter-echo-chamber combat to the forum.
The Expensify (Vendor of Expense Reporting Software to companies) CEO sent a long email to its entire database of company emails urging people to vote Biden to protect Democracy. They're under fire because companies gave them private employee information including email addresses which were then used for purposes outside of the services they provided. The backlash also includes people worried about the continued intrusion of politics and partisanship into business interactions.
|
United States43989 Posts
It's weird that we have some people saying "the country is falling to fascism, please help stop that" and others responding "maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but I'm tired of people talking about that".
It's such an incomprehensible response. The coherent positions are
1) The country is falling to fascism and we should stop that (Democrats)
2) The country is falling to fascism and we should embrace that (alt right)
3) The country is not falling to fascism (Republicans who don't watch the news and aren't aware that Trump bragged about sending a hit squad to kill an antifa activist a few days ago)
But there isn't a
4) I don't get why it's a big deal and I'm tired of people talking about the fall into fascism, people should stay in their lane
It's just like how if there was a giant meteor heading for Earth then "why is everyone always talking about the end of all life on earth all the time, they should all shut up, a lot of them aren't even astronomers" wouldn't be a coherent position.
Also if you genuinely believe that American democracy is on the verge of collapse then surely emailing your mailing list to ask them to try to stop that is socially responsible. You might disagree with the premise but within the context of the belief it's a commendable action.
|
On October 24 2020 18:02 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On October 24 2020 09:02 JimmiC wrote:On October 24 2020 08:59 Cricketer12 wrote:On October 24 2020 08:52 JimmiC wrote:On October 24 2020 08:51 Cricketer12 wrote:On October 24 2020 08:50 JimmiC wrote:On October 24 2020 08:39 GreenHorizons wrote:as long as you don't pretend that you care about the people who are losing their lifeline when the ACA or Roe vs Wade are repelled. Just think it's important to point out again that those ships have sailed. Barrett is a "fine person" that Biden doesn't object to being on the supreme court in herself. His objection is simply to the process (which was heard, rejected, and moved past). So the 6-3 conservative court is done (just a matter of going through the motions now). Democrats can't get the court back for a loooong time without rejecting Biden's opposition to removing the filibuster and stuffing the court. Which is also what they'd have to do to get legislation passed and to stand up to SCOTUS scrutiny. The notion that people are supporting/voting for Biden to protect those things reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of how the US government works. Lots of presumption them. There is nothing Biden can do about Barrett right now. Throwing a tantrum wouldn't do anything. Since we can't go back in time and unvote Trump, best you can do is take all 3 levels of government and make there be huge consequences for trying to go back on it.
That battle is far from done, intact it has not started. What exactly do you mean by this? Sorry, poorly written. President, senate and congress. Ahh thought you were alluding to packing the courts I do think that will be one of the options if the Republicans push for overturning it. I also think they will have many other options. Also, if the Reps get it handed to them in this election I'm not sure they will do anything so unpopular after just losing big. But the big point is presumptions are not facts, lots to happen before that one is lost! If they just lost big and are on the way out, what do they have to lose by doing something unpopular? I fully expect the Republicans to ram through the SC appointment after the election when there is no prize to pay for another 2 years and those who already lost have nothing left to lose.
Just thought I should mention her full confirmation vote is on the senate schedule for Monday, not post election.
|
On October 25 2020 02:53 Danglars wrote:In light of all the consternation on court packing and ACB, there's a new podcast started by McConnell's old Chief of Staff and campaign manager. It might be worth a listen for people that wonder how some Republicans about as far right of center as this forum is left of center think about the history of the legislative court battles leading up to Kavanaugh. Playable from Apple's website, "It's Happening" 20 minutes. This comes with a hat tip to dearly departed Doodsmack's efforts to bring inter-echo-chamber combat to the forum.
I did listen to it but I wish they would go into the history more with less snark and sarcasm. There was a Frontline documentary last year that started with Mitch McConell's experience as a new senator 30 years ago when the Democrats blocked a Supreme Court nominee, and tracing his (and the Federalist Society's) role in court nominations up to the present day. It's kind of long at almost an hour but if anyone cares to watch:
https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/supreme-revenge/
|
On October 25 2020 04:06 KwarK wrote:
It's weird that we have some people saying "the country is falling to fascism, please help stop that" and others responding "maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but I'm tired of people talking about that".
It's such an incomprehensible response. The coherent positions are
1) The country is falling to fascism and we should stop that (Democrats)
2) The country is falling to fascism and we should embrace that (alt right)
3) The country is not falling to fascism (Republicans who don't watch the news and aren't aware that Trump bragged about sending a hit squad to kill an antifa activist a few days ago)
But there isn't a
4) I don't get why it's a big deal and I'm tired of people talking about the fall into fascism, people should stay in their lane
It's just like how if there was a giant meteor heading for Earth then "why is everyone always talking about the end of all life on earth all the time, they should all shut up, a lot of them aren't even astronomers" wouldn't be a coherent position.
Also if you genuinely believe that American democracy is on the verge of collapse then surely emailing your mailing list to ask them to try to stop that is socially responsible. You might disagree with the premise but within the context of the belief it's a commendable action.
well maybe you are misinterpreting it. the letter is obviously a complaint against a business practice he doesn’t like. it’s a complaint that this mass email violates an unspoken norm within American business practices about “trust”, what business data collection should be used for, and about the sacred separation of church and business.
your post just plays around with the different significations “fascism” has and the slippage between them. position four, as you yourself have written it, already implies that anyone who holds it doesn’t think that “fascism” is “a big deal.” maybe they dont think that its a big deal because “fascism” has come to signify something like “politics i don’t like.” many on the right think they couldn’t be farther from fascism; they are committed to the Republic and liberty, and the so-callled “apolitical” who “don’t see the big deal” also might roll their eyes whenever anybody calls trump a fascist. your last paragraph, however, slips in a world-ending asteroid as a metonym for “fascism.” it can just be rejected out-of-hand.
to make another analogy, you might as well say the same thing about abortion. if a company sent out a message about the “murder” of millions of babies and someone with no strong position on abortion sent back a letter saying “hey, i don’t want to hear about abortion from you” we’d be in a similar position. maybe you’d say, “well it makes total sense if you think abortion is baby murder”—and, of course, you are right. but why don’t we see more businesses sending out jeremiads
about baby murder? because it’s bad for business? because people don’t like it? if anything the letter is just a reminder to some people that not everyone thinks Trump is a fascist, not everyone even cares about Trump, and if you still feel so moved as to send out a letter like this less than four years after this country elected Trump in the first place, go ahead but know that as a consummately “independent,” liberty-minded, business man, i am going to lump you in with the other varieties of “crazy” religious extremists
|
United States43989 Posts
On October 25 2020 04:54 IgnE wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2020 04:06 KwarK wrote:
It's weird that we have some people saying "the country is falling to fascism, please help stop that" and others responding "maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but I'm tired of people talking about that".
It's such an incomprehensible response. The coherent positions are
1) The country is falling to fascism and we should stop that (Democrats)
2) The country is falling to fascism and we should embrace that (alt right)
3) The country is not falling to fascism (Republicans who don't watch the news and aren't aware that Trump bragged about sending a hit squad to kill an antifa activist a few days ago)
But there isn't a
4) I don't get why it's a big deal and I'm tired of people talking about the fall into fascism, people should stay in their lane
It's just like how if there was a giant meteor heading for Earth then "why is everyone always talking about the end of all life on earth all the time, they should all shut up, a lot of them aren't even astronomers" wouldn't be a coherent position.
Also if you genuinely believe that American democracy is on the verge of collapse then surely emailing your mailing list to ask them to try to stop that is socially responsible. You might disagree with the premise but within the context of the belief it's a commendable action. well maybe you are misinterpreting it. the letter is obviously a complaint against a business practice he doesn’t like. it’s a complaint that this mass email violates an unspoken norm within American business practices about “trust”, what business data collection should be used for, and about the sacred separation of church and business. your post just plays around with the the different significations “fascism” has and the slippage between them. position four, as you yourself have written it already implies that anyone who holds it doesn’t think that “fascism” is “a big deal,” probably because it has come to signify something like “politics i don’t like.” many on the right think they couldn’t be farther from fascism; they are committed to the Republic and liberty, and the so-callled “apolitical” who “don’t see the big deal” also might roll their eyes whenever anybody calls trump a fascist. your last paragraph, however, slips in a world-ending asteroid as a metonym for “fascism.” it can just be rejected out-of-hand. to make another analogy, you might as well say the same thing about abortion. if a company sent out a message about the “murder” of millions of babies and someone with no strong position on abortion sent back a letter saying “hey, i don’t want to hear about abortion from you” we’d be in a similar position. maybe you’d say, “well it makes total sense if you think abortion is baby murder”—and, of course, you are right. but why don’t we more businesses sending out jeremiads about baby murder? because it’s bad for business? because people don’t like it? if anything the letter is just a reminder to some people that not everyone thinks Trump is a fascist, not everyone even cares about Trump, and if you still feel so moved as to send out a letter like this less than four years after this country elected Trump in the first place, go ahead but know that as a consummately “independent,” liberty-minded, business man, i am going to lump you in with the other varieties of “crazy” religious extremists
I wouldn't be very confused about why someone who believes that abortion is murder would be emailing me to let me know about it if they thought I could help stop abortions. That would make sense to me.
I certainly wouldn't say that because they're just an app creator they're not entitled to have an opinion on murder, that would be a dumb take, murder is clearly an issue large enough for everyone to have an opinion on it. I would simply add their emails to my ignore list.
|
On October 25 2020 04:59 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On October 25 2020 04:54 IgnE wrote:On October 25 2020 04:06 KwarK wrote:
It's weird that we have some people saying "the country is falling to fascism, please help stop that" and others responding "maybe it is, maybe it isn't, but I'm tired of people talking about that".
It's such an incomprehensible response. The coherent positions are
1) The country is falling to fascism and we should stop that (Democrats)
2) The country is falling to fascism and we should embrace that (alt right)
3) The country is not falling to fascism (Republicans who don't watch the news and aren't aware that Trump bragged about sending a hit squad to kill an antifa activist a few days ago)
But there isn't a
4) I don't get why it's a big deal and I'm tired of people talking about the fall into fascism, people should stay in their lane
It's just like how if there was a giant meteor heading for Earth then "why is everyone always talking about the end of all life on earth all the time, they should all shut up, a lot of them aren't even astronomers" wouldn't be a coherent position.
Also if you genuinely believe that American democracy is on the verge of collapse then surely emailing your mailing list to ask them to try to stop that is socially responsible. You might disagree with the premise but within the context of the belief it's a commendable action. well maybe you are misinterpreting it. the letter is obviously a complaint against a business practice he doesn’t like. it’s a complaint that this mass email violates an unspoken norm within American business practices about “trust”, what business data collection should be used for, and about the sacred separation of church and business. your post just plays around with the the different significations “fascism” has and the slippage between them. position four, as you yourself have written it already implies that anyone who holds it doesn’t think that “fascism” is “a big deal,” probably because it has come to signify something like “politics i don’t like.” many on the right think they couldn’t be farther from fascism; they are committed to the Republic and liberty, and the so-callled “apolitical” who “don’t see the big deal” also might roll their eyes whenever anybody calls trump a fascist. your last paragraph, however, slips in a world-ending asteroid as a metonym for “fascism.” it can just be rejected out-of-hand. to make another analogy, you might as well say the same thing about abortion. if a company sent out a message about the “murder” of millions of babies and someone with no strong position on abortion sent back a letter saying “hey, i don’t want to hear about abortion from you” we’d be in a similar position. maybe you’d say, “well it makes total sense if you think abortion is baby murder”—and, of course, you are right. but why don’t we more businesses sending out jeremiads about baby murder? because it’s bad for business? because people don’t like it? if anything the letter is just a reminder to some people that not everyone thinks Trump is a fascist, not everyone even cares about Trump, and if you still feel so moved as to send out a letter like this less than four years after this country elected Trump in the first place, go ahead but know that as a consummately “independent,” liberty-minded, business man, i am going to lump you in with the other varieties of “crazy” religious extremists I wouldn't be very confused about why someone who believes that abortion is murder would be emailing me to let me know about it if they thought I could help stop abortions. That would make sense to me. I certainly wouldn't say that because they're just an app creator they're not entitled to have an opinion on murder, that would be a dumb take, murder is clearly an issue large enough for everyone to have an opinion on it. I would simply add their emails to my ignore list.
well now you are just misrepresenting the argument. the letter doesn’t say that the executive board of whatever company that is “has no right to an opinion.”
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
