Joe Biden (+General Biden/Harris Administration)
A big, hot, steaming cup of Joe...
One would think at this point that Joe Biden merits a thread specifically about him, and his years of experience helping to lead and guide one of the top ten countries in the Western Hemisphere. The man could very well be the next president of the United States.
Pros or cons(ervatives)? Thoughts? Feelings? News stories? What is Joe Biden’s philosophy? Do share!
Here’s one: Kamala Harris has announced her endorsement of Mr. Biden.
Could Kamala Harris be a potential VP pick for Biden?
One would think at this point that Joe Biden merits a thread specifically about him, and his years of experience helping to lead and guide one of the top ten countries in the Western Hemisphere. The man could very well be the next president of the United States.
Pros or cons(ervatives)? Thoughts? Feelings? News stories? What is Joe Biden’s philosophy? Do share!
Here’s one: Kamala Harris has announced her endorsement of Mr. Biden.
Could Kamala Harris be a potential VP pick for Biden?
Comments (2641)
See if you can watch this entire compilation video of Joe Biden’s love of hair sniffing. The first one to be able to get through the entire 7-minute plus video wins! (I had to shut it off after a minute or so. I hope to make it through eventually... )
Winner gets a chance for a visit and a long hug from Joe himself! (Contest not valid in Utah).
Ok... go!
Oh exactly! The world definitely needs more love right now. A whole lotta love. I really hope the upcoming debate with Bernie starts with a long and tender hug between the two men. And some deep and honest emotional sharing. It might even start a trend! :hearts:
Will he continue the list of the following Democrats?
At least he would perfectly fit in to this category.
So you are not aware of his massive corruption scandals with e.g. Ukraine and China. Well, they don´t tell you about it at CNN, the NYT and Huffpost, so yes if you are an echo chamber resident your world probably looks like that.
Joe will not rock the boat. He will continue to err on the side of corporate profit when it's in direct conflict with everyday Americans' livelihoods. The major corporations and media outlets have a concerted campaign to smear Bernie at all costs. Re-implement cold war thinking and labels. That's how we've arrived where we are.
It's not over yet though.
The ticket out of this...
A Sanders/Warren ticket.
To a certain extent, but I don't think that the democrats could've run a more reviled candidate than Hillary Clinton in 2016. She was unpopular among republicans and democrats and though I much prefer Bernie than Joe, I can't say I hate him on a personal level like Clinton.
Well, if it's true that the capitalists (holders of economic power) dislike Sanders and campaigned against him, wouldn't that mean he'd have worse chances to be elected?
I'm an interested foreign observer. Foreign, because I don't live in the US, but interested because I have immediate family who does, and also because I see the stability of the United States as being central to economic and political order.
A year ago I would have thought Biden a has-been. But, desperate times call for desperate remedies, and these are desperate times. Trump is a disgrace to the office and a threat to the world's peace and prosperity - another four-year term could quite conceivably end in economic collapse or at the very least, permanent damage to American constitutional order. Biden might be inarticulate and far from inspiring but he is at least mentally competent and seemingly honest. I'm hoping that the Democrats win the trifecta - Presidency, House and Senate - and sweep the appallingly corrupt, venal and spineless GOP into the dustbin of history.
//oh, and Biden's philosophy - centrist pragmatism. The reason he's a good bet is because a lot of disillusioned Republican voters could feasibly vote for him in good conscience, which they would never, ever do for Sanders.//
I'm hoping, Amy Klobuchar OR Elizabeth Warren, so they'll be able to run as 'Mr and Mrs America'.
Warren would be my hope. It will work to assuaging the women voters who were bitterly disappointed by her exit. And, she's brilliant and a person of high integrity. But it will depend on whether she's able to play second fiddle.
All Biden has to do is just not be horrible and despised like Clinton was in 2016. The democrats are prepared to vote for a paper bag if that means Trump doesn't get re-elected. The election will largely be decided by how much the left is willing to turnout to vote for the democrat.
It quite clear when you think who they picked to be their candidate last time.
The political party is run by weak geriatrics, who don't want to take a gamble. And who have been quite out of touch from the actual feelings of the voters.
Finding an Obama, a one term senator, was the exception. Yet Obama was a "loyal democrat" as a senator and then got support even from superdelegates. That he won Hillary should have told something later for the DNC. But I guess enough people in the party promised Hillary the candidacy after Obama. That Biden didn't go for it in 2016 is again very telling.
Not if the same people stayed home as last time. I don't see Biden getting votes from those who want real change. I do see Bernie picking up some Biden and some Trump supporters.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stacey_Abrams
Warren as Biden’s VP?Jesus... that is a depressing thought. To me, anyway. Would seem like such a settling, if perhaps not a selling-out. (Yea, I know. There are no saints in the city... )
It's actually a lot of repetition after the first three minutes. The framing is odd too. Why do people assume it's hair sniffing? It looks to me like he is whispering to them.
They'll hear too much about it if they pick two old white men.
:flower:
His ignorant face in power is a disgusting thought.
I, too, am 83...and I wish the Democrats had chosen someone younger. But in my opinion, Biden is fit enough for the job. And after the horror of the abomination now in office, he is the kind of personality I want to see in that job...someone who at least has a chance to appeal to our better natures.
His choice of VP will be monumental...and undoubtedly will disappoint at first. But she will eventually win over people after a bit of reflection.
What absolutely MUST happen is to be rid of the ignorant, uninformed, supercilious, CLASSLESS boor that now occupies the office.
That sounds like Trump.
And since you elected Trump, what's the problem?
The problem is that the right has all sorts of dogmas that excuse Trump's corruption, even make it a good thing.
For instance, Randians may see Trump's corruption as simply "following self interest" which is a good thing in their system. Of course, the immediately use the left's standards of corruption and the idea "greed is bad" when criticizing the left or government in general. So Hillary is a corrupt greedy and basically evil politician, like all bureaucrats and politicians, but Trump is a savvy business person who knows how to make the system work for him, and if he does it corruptly and gets ahead that's just winning, and of course he is bringing that savviness into his new life as a politician to enrich himself. This world view basically reduces to the dogma that business people being naturally greedy creates good but bureaucratic being naturally greedy not only creates bad but makes them evil; without any attempt to resolve these two groups are coming from the same homogeneously greedy humanity that is postulated nor resolve what happens when "good greedy business people" get involved in politics or bureaucratic processes.
Likewise, the evangelical right have created a dogma that Trump is literally or metaphorically the reincarnation of an old testament king, which God worked through to do the good. Trump is behaving as they'd expect an old testament king to behave (an old testament king does what they will, takes the women they want, the money they want, isn't accountable to anything) so therefore this is evidence of the theory working.
However, the left doesn't have similar dogmas to justify corruption on the left. There is a legitimate self criticism in the desire to reduce and remove corruption as well as a legitimate response to criticism from the right. The right can therefore use the left's standards of right and wrong against the left, because the left tends to believe those are real legitimate standards (not just politically expedient value signalling that can be resolved by the talking points of the day regardless of even a surface scrutiny of those talking points nor if they contradict yesterday's talking points).
Pointing out the right is hypocritical in using "greed is bad" with regard to left politicians and not right politicians, and hypocritical of assuming Trump can be the reincarnation of an old testament king (to do good mysteriously through doing bad, basically) but not Obama (who's literally the anti-Christ) doesn't help win an election.
What helps winning an election is nominating someone who can be easily defended against charges of corruption (due to a long track record easily explained by a lack of corruption) and who doesn't have super cringe videos of interaction with children (the argument Biden is simply not self-aware doesn't help, nor the argument that it's actually normal stranger-child interaction that "happens to have bad optics for a politician" as people can verify in their own lives that no one interacts with children in these ways; the constant touching and prodding of children even fathers don't do, much less grandfathers much less strangers; normal touching is holding hands, a pat on the head or some sort of fun game that involves touching like tag; the idea that these videos aren't a major problem for the Democrats is crazy; they'll be circulated and recirculated and the emotional impact will be enormous; the idea he's an out-of-touch, not self-aware, hyper-doting pan-grandpa to a creepily cringe level isn't a good argument, which is basically what apologists for Biden about these videos argue; nor the argument he's just trying to "get a good photo" stand-up to 1 second of thought, as he's not the photographer nor actually looking at what he's adjusting, and no one normal thinks "oh, this child may ruin the picture, I need to be continuously on this problem" to begin with). What's the apology? "Oh, no, no, no, Biden's not a pedophile, he just loves children so much!" Yeah, sure, maybe, but choosing a candidate where scrutiny starts at such a statement is sub-optimum strategy.
True, on some level "what about Trump" can justify supporting Biden in a pick-your-poison analysis, even if the worst accusations about Biden are true, but whataboutism doesn't win new converts, it just helps keep existing converts in the cult, and Trump win's handily if it's about who has the bigger cult following, and so the progressive left concludes that nominating Biden demonstrates the DNC rather lose to Trump than win with Bernie (or any candidate remotely credible, due to legitimately being not corrupt); Trump's given all the donor class huge tax breaks, he's pretty good if things are looked at objectively from the donor class point of view. And progressive leftists have been saying this for a while; Biden is just an ultimate confirmation for this point of view.
The basic problem is that far too many people are simply totally partisan, total hypocrites and have absolutely no interest whatsoever to hear what are the points of the other side. Hence every criticism made of Trump is made just by those with Trump derangement syndrome. The other side is portrayed in the worst way. Just pick the most craziest most eccentric view and treat it as being what they all are saying. End result, discussion is meaningless. The Republicans outperform the Democrats in this way, but the democrats aren't so far away, really.
It is personal, it is emotional and it won't go away. It's the post-truth world where everything is thought to be just propaganda.
With Trump some of his supporters genuinely wanted a change. But who the f*k cares that actually the left and the right both are opposed to corruption. Both see just the attacks against their side from the other side. And the fact is that Trump supporters have created their own fantasy of Trump. The Trump that is doing great with North Korea. The Trump that is building the wall and making Mexico pay for it. The Trump that is great in handling the pandemic. They simply won't admit that Trump is as inept as everybody said, better just assume he is doing a fine job. Hence with Trump supporters, they don't care what Trump is actually like. And if he's rich and connected? No problem, the elite circles hated the guy. That the liberals and the democrats and the establishment seem to hate Trump is enough for them. He has to be doing a lot of good.
And many people simply don't understand how much hatred there was for Hillary Clinton. For eight years the Republicans attacked Bill Clinton. They impeached him. He is a serial womanizer. And it wasn't just the Republican party that was critical about Clinton. I remember The Economist having it's front cover with the word "just resign". So how do you think the Republicans thought when the wife of this politician waltzes into the candidacy even after having previously lost to Obama?
If it's hard to understand, how do you think after the misery eight years of Donald Trump the democrats will feel when the GOP nominates Ivanka Trump for the Presidential Candidate? Hey, she's a young woman! A mother. Wouldn't it great to have a woman President? And why so upset about the idea, just listen to what Ivanka says and will do...
I agree with the major points.
However, the Trump camp really is made up of people with beliefs that seem caricatural. Granted, they have conditions and concerns motivating these beliefs that we can empathize with, but there simply isn't any significant amount of Trump supporters that can't be described as "the most craziest most eccentric view" around.
Trump is simply crazy and eccentric, from a governing point of view -- not necessarily from enriching himself and cultivating a cult following point of view. For instance, tweeting out support for insurrection against the government that he is the highest official of. For his cult though, it's just bad ass and a great move.
But I only wanted to mention this to point out Joe Biden doesn't have a cult following and so the mudslinging is not symmetric.
Joe Biden and his supporters simply don't have the ability to neutralize genuine criticism. Republicans respond well to "well, their corrupt too!" without realizing that if they don't do anything to remove corruption on their side they are de facto supporting it. People on the left simply don't respond well to the argument that "corruption on the other side excuses corruption on our side", they don't want to see corruption on either side and they can do something about the corruption on their side.
Furthermore, the ideologies that led to simply legalizing most of what corruption means originated with the Republicans; it's Republican judges that ruled money is speech, that gerrymandering is a "political issue" that judiciary can't remedy, and that bribery cannot be implied with a wink and nod, or giving money while having a public campaign making it clear what you want, but requires explicit recorded quid pro quo. So, when Republican politicians take advantage of legal corruption it doesn't create a sense of frustration for Republicans, these were all "Republican victories"; it does, however, create frustration on the left regardless of who is doing it.
So yes, the right is also frustrated with corruption, but they no longer really have an idea of what corruption is and why it's bad. Corruption on their side is easily viewed as "winning". An example outside of politics is the multi-millionaire pastors who raise money to buy private jets; all of these pastors are on the right, essentially campaign for Trump, point out Trump's just winning like their winning, as they both have God's blessing.
Whereas on the left, not only are there no multi-millionaire pastors herding leftists around -- though it would be a mistake to say there are no Christians on the left -- but there's pressure on politicians to "not take corporate money"; this was a big part of Bernie's identity and argument. Corruption in a reasonably defined way, legal or not, is a big issue on the left.
So, why did the establishment choose Joe? Why can't the DNC find a candidate that is centrist but not easily accused of corruption, perhaps legal corruption, but still corruption?
This is the heart of the DNC problem, they are the party of "can't we have bit of the corruption" and so they, basically by definition, can't easilly find politicians who want to defend the corrupt setup of the status quo but who aren't themselves corrupt. The Republicans realized that, corruption long term is only sustainable if you build ideologies where the corruption is seen as a good thing, whereas the Democrat establishment have not done so, they are just an elite aristocracy detached from their constituents; but they can't just step aside, that's just not how corruption works, so they are content to just lose thousands of seats in State level legislatures, lose to Trump, lose the supreme court, let the republicans play hardball in every inning and just whimper around in response, and content to lose to Trump again.
This is the long term problem with the Democrats and the institutional problem with the US with the two party system. Why on Earth did they choose Hillary? Many people hated the Clintons. Hillary lost to Obama already. So in 2016 it was now "her turn"? Now in a similar fashion the young candidates were brushed aside and the enthusiasm of the Bernie supporters was put aside also. The DNC leadership is old and simply hasn't got the feel to the pulse of the nation. It genuinely lacks vision and understanding of it's voters and the situation. (Neither did the GOP either actually: Trump was just a train wreck that suddenly caught the party by total surprise with even a bigger surprise that he won.) It lacks ability to get people excited.
The DNC has been controlled by the centrists, the "New Democrats" as both of the two latest presidents have come from this group in the DNC (after Hillary lost and Obama went on to become the President, this was the camp that Obama opted for). The conservative wing is dead (I guess) and the progressive wing has been kept out. And nothing is as more counterproductive now than a "third-way" pro-globalization type centrism is the current situation, that will pick the same old faces to run things as during the Clinton and Obama years.
I guess the only way for Joe Biden to win is to pick a progressive vice-president nominee, perhaps Elizabeth Warren or even another geriatric, Bernie. Otherwise they really can loose.
Yes, I agree.
Quoting ssu
Both parties (pre-Trump) continued to function on the idea the "internet just doesn't exist", and they simply ignored it.
Fox News has fallen in line now, and internet Trump groups now drive Fox news rather than the other way around, but there were multiple times Fox tried to bury Trump and just not talk about him anymore.
Conservative media have accepted their place on the totem poll Trump > Trump online networks > Them.
Why they accept it is that, though they don't like Trumpian politics (they prefer a polite and "respectable" mascot), there is no actual alternative governing ideology on the right; so it's not really a threat to have Trump and online Trumpians drive the discussion. The slogan for this group has become "I don't like Trump, but I love his policies! Tax breaks, woohooo!"
The problem with the progressives is that they do have a coherent alternate governing ideology ready to go. This governing ideology has been proven to be workable in dozens of countries (still lot's to debate, lot's of policy variations, but it clearly can work).
The "job" of democrat centrist is to keep this ideology out of government.
With Hillary, progressives were split on the subject of whether the DNC is ready to lose power to fulfill their donor mandate to keep progressive ideas out of real power.
Yes, Hillary had a lot of flaws and legitimate examples of (highly likely) corruption such as her foundation shenanigans. But she did have a lot going for her, such as she won a majority of women voters and won the popular vote.
But already, nearly all the progressive American voices I listen to are unanimous that the DNC would rather lose with Biden than let progressives share power in any meaningful way.
A key point of course is that they orchestrated a "rally around Biden" right before super Tuesday (but keep in Warren just long enough to split votes with Bernie), not to mention Ohio had clear admitted to vote rigging (DNC lawyers just claimed it was fair vote rigging to make simple math errors in summing votes, as it's in broad daylight).
Not to say Bernie had no chance of winning despite these odds, but DNC preference is clear they don't want a situation where progressives have any power (they'll change votes, and do whatever necessary to avoid a contested convention with progressives).
The writing's on the wall of course, younger generations use the internet, but it's clear they will hold on tooth and nail to power, even if it means playing second fiddle to Trump.
Quoting ssu
I'm not sure.
A good running mate (the left actually likes) helps, but the general wisdom is that it mostly comes down to the candidate. A good running mate adds more momentum to a good candidate, but doesn't really help a bad candidate.
Of course anything can happen (even replacing Joe somehow), but as it stands, Joe seems like a long shot candidate. It's repeating Hillary 2016 but somehow worse.
I think @ssu is saying that polarization and "post-truth" politics leads Trump supporters to dismiss all criticism of Trump with the euphemism of TDS.
That's how I understand it.
Also note, neither @ssu nor I characterize all Americans as extreme partisans, but rather that extreme partisanship (where small extreme groups hold disproportionate power) is a feature of the US electoral system.
The relevant issue vis-a-vis Joe Biden is that Trump has more extreme partisans than Joe Biden, and the reality is that criticism of Joe Biden will more likely land simply because less people on the left are an extreme Joe Biden partisan. In otherwords, Joe Biden is a terrible candidate for the current electoral mood and for the fact the internet is very much a thing now (people can watch Joe Biden with children; the mainstream media ignoring the issue doesn't magically make the issue not matter).
And more generally, the extreme partisan game is simply less powerful on the left. Lot's of people on the left had legitimate corruption concerns about Hillary, because there's simply important evidence about her foundation, purpose for even having a private mail server in her basement, and "private and public position" ideology (private position ... benefiting who?). There were extreme Hillary partisans that engaged in the same reality denying games as Trump supporters do now, but they were a minority; so, for a significant part of the US left the argument for Hillary is "a lesser of two evils", and maybe analytically correct (who know's; certainly Hillary would have been better for US empire than Trump, but US empire may not be ultimately a good thing and Trump is doing the Lord's work by dismantling it through inept management and extracting value from it for personal gain wherever possible), but, in terms of winning elections, "lesser of two evils" is not a motivating reasoning, so even if it's correct it may not help you actually win.
The right doesn't have this problem. A larger proportion of Trump supporters believe he's great, and there's lot's of positive reasons to vote for him on top of the democrats being crazy socialists, more swampy, or pure evil.
It's a big advantage, and the best way to compensate Trump's advantage is with a good candidate that genuinely can deal with criticism due to clearly not being corrupt, womanizer (touching lots of women uncomfortably as the Times reported and then deleted), bizarre child "doter" (why Trump was most afraid of running against Bernie; these criticism don't land on Bernie, they do land on Biden because there's lot's of smoke and thus reason to suspect fire).
Apologists for Biden already arguing "yeah, maybe he sucks, but he's better than Trump"; maybe they're right, maybe wrong (maybe Biden is king of some pedophilia cult and Trump is, despite incredible moral failings not also a pedophilia king, and is, incredibly, the lesser of two evils), but what I think we all agree on is that running a weak candidate is not a good strategy to win.
Thanks you for appreciating my arguments; unfortunately, it takes a lot more work to make an argument shorter. I too appreciate people who disagree with me but are being honest with their views at any given time; not just how we learn, but also how we learn what humanity is really like.
Quoting tim wood
The problem with the lesser of two evils argument (why Hillary didn't easily win) is that it is the nature of evil to be deceptive, so it's not logically possible to "know for sure" how evil compares to evil. So, you can always imagine the "second worst option" has hidden things making them actually worse.
So, as soon as you admit to using a lessor of two evils approach, there's no solid argument to make that it's true. It's entirely consistent to suspect being just better deceived by what appears as the 2nd option.
What happens is that people with a bias one way can just go with that bias, and people with a bias another way go with their bias. A Democrat saying to a Republican "look, I've got the lessor of two evils here", it's completely reasonable for the Republicans to worry it's a trick.
To be clear, most Americans agreed Hillary was the best of two bad options, but for US elections we need to contextualize things in the fact minority popular vote can win the office.
Republicans have been playing the "win with a minority" game really well. For Democrats to win they need to overcompensate this disadvantage, and this is a difficult game to play; to succeed when the odds are stacked against you, requires accumulating every advantage possible: using the primaries to get to the strongest candidate available; even if that means a brokered convention where progressives have some power.
This is why I am so harsh on the DNC here; there was no need to orchestrate all the candidates dropping out to rally around Biden, use Warren to split the vote, in a panicked backroom horsetrading coup, there were other strong candidates relative Biden; and if a brokered convention would select Bernie, maybe he's just the strongest candidate and Bernie in the white house is not the end of the world. Furthermore, Bernie has serious problems too, mainly being super old now, so may have been willing to support a younger compromise candidate. In otherwords, the DNC could have chosen to engage with politics.
Indeed, had the DNC not orchestrated a premature end to the race (there's only a "clear winner" from everyone else dropping out), then there would have been younger candidates in this time of Covid. Both Bernie and Biden are in the high risk group for Covid of nearly 80. How do you campaign in isolation? How do you campaign without isolation if it may kill you?
Younger candidates wouldn't have had to worry so much, giving rise to the possibility that both Joe and Biden agree on a compromise candidate and "pass the torch". A moving moment that brings the Democrats together. Instead, the DNC orchestrated a strategic catastrophe.
Not that I'm saying the election is already decided, but it's really depressing to see a genuinely vibrant primary with lot's of good points of view and candidates, narrowed to just Biden for no reason ... then Covid happen (which was already inevitable for anyone paying attention) and Biden in even worse position (the weakest on healthcare, easiest to attack, old and very vulnerable to Covid itself).
Quoting tim wood
Definitely, the irony can't be more palpable.
My own view is that Joe Biden is the BEST possible candidate TO BEAT TRUMP. There are several other candidates who far better meet my personal criteria for where I want a leader to lead us...but to be honest, they just do not have a chance of being elected.
A younger Bernie Sanders type would be my preference...but I am convinced a Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren is unelectable in today's America. Our country is just not ready for that hard left lurch...although I suspect dealing with all the crap that came up due to the pandemic might just push our nation much further left.
If I had my wish, America would turn its entire healthcare system totally socialistic within 2 - 3 decades. I would love to see all medical training, for doctors, dentists, nurses, aides, and all other healthcare workers to be 100% paid for by the government...with a healthy stipend for people entering the field. he price of the free education would be a commitment to work for government hospitals and clinics for a period of 10 -15 years...at a very decent pay.
We ain't gonna get that...but that would be my wish.
Yeah, at my age...I'm not going to see it. I hope future generations do...and that it happens soon. It is long over-due in America.
I use ear-drops that cost about the same as your eye-drops. The price is outrageous.
We gotta handle it...SOON.
As a young USAF officer, I was sent to the U of Chicago to qualify me as a meteorologist. All expenses paid plus a decent salary at the time. I knew of MDs and one lawyer who had been entirely supported as I had been. The lawyer remained in the Air Force and retired a Colonel - he's now the district attorney where I live. The others put in a few years and left the service, as I did.
That was in the 1950s. I assume such programs still exist. Actually, I'm in favor of free education all the way, provided the recipient is serious and studious and not simply sponging off the US government. As a former professor I have unfortunately seen that happen.
Yes to everything you said here but especially the notion that ANY government supported education should require very good grades from a recipient.
I also was in the USAF during the 1950's. I processed many officers into the service at Sampson AFB in 1954 through 1956. I then transferred to a small SAC support base in England.
"That guy" (Joe Biden) will "run the country" 1000 times more effectively than the classless incompetent now attempting to do so.
"If you look at Joe Biden's central role in expanding the prison industrial complex, shepherding university students into debt peonage, and pushing the U.S into war with Iraq, it seems clear that he is responsible for as much (if not more) death and social misery as Trump. The liberal push to get people to support him as a "lesser evil" is not harm reduction; it is harm legitimation. Rather than asking "why isn't the Left backing Biden?", we should ask: "why are so many liberals so deeply invested in normalizing cruelty?"
Someone else in the comments mentioned that it was policies of the likes which Biden pushed and supported that effectively spawned Trump anyway - which I think is entirely on point and makes laughable the idea that Biden is alternative to Trump rather than a condition and an accelerator of Trumpism. Either one belongs to one pole in two-sided, mutually implicating death spiral.
Biden had no idea where he was. Isn't that cause for some concern, even if Trump is classless and incompetent? Why should either get a pass?
He was finishing a TV bit. Have you ever done TV? The end of one of those things usually requires a fade out of some sort...and the "talent" is told to hold still. Which is what he was doing...even if the camera was stationary and unmanned. Then his wife came up and he kissed her.
The nonsense that Joe "had no idea where he was" is an absurdity.
In any case, I would take him over Trump any day of the week.
In November, that will be the choice.
Or better yet, try to figure out the cost before you go so that you can price shop. It's nearly impossible. You're going to have to get a doctor's fee, a facility fee, an anesthesiologist fee, a pathology fee, and who knows what else fee. Some can lock down a price, other's won't get back with you. Others have varying fees, depending upon whether you have insurance. I was quoted a much higher price if I used my insurance (although it didn't approach my deductible) than if I said I was uninsured. It would seem the cost should be the cost regardless of my affiliation.
It would seem that if the US is committed to this privatized model, transparency in pricing is a necessary component. How can competition exist if no one knows the price?
The capitalist fix to price gouging is having a competitor charge less (as opposed to government regulation). It would seem someone really committed to making the capitalistic model needs to work on transparency in pricing.
This is just to say there is something in between public healthcare and whatever it is we have now that we ought to give a try, but if the left keeps fighting for public healthcare and the right keeps saying no to everything, so we're just stuck in a pretty ridiculous status quo.
The availability of private insurance for those who don't get it through their employer has been at a crisis stage for a long while, even for those who are in the middle class. It needs to be addressed, and I'd listen to either side that has an idea that could actually get passed.
He was just at the end of his speech.
Biden will be hit with some misleading ads, but there's plenty of fire behind the smoke.
But unless something very unfortunate happens, it will come down to a choice between Trump and Biden...and anyone choosing Trump in that match-up is just not thinking about the welfare of our country or the world in general.
Boethius got my point, I'll confirm it. You see, far too easily we assume that people are just repeating the talking points of one side. People aren't stereotypes (even if stereotypes tell a lot about people).
One can see that many people who have not and never will vote Trump are critical about Biden. And I think that it's totally normal: anyone using their own head will likely come to the conclusion that they agree with some issues and disagree on others when it comes to one specific politician.
(pardon the re-post)
addendum:
Today on Earth One, where bad news ain't mostly "fake news" (FOX Noise), the latest global effect of the 2nd wave of covid-19 outbreaks: collapse of crude oil prices below $0 per barrel (i.e. canary in the depression mine).
https://www.bbc.com/news/business-52350082
:mask:
2020 election will be a referendum on tRUMP's handling of PANDEMIC & DEPRESSION ...
https://youtu.be/ozzwMBvvUiA :victory:
I might go with Tulsi Gabbard. I think the Dems should try to reach across the aisle as much as possible, and also try to snag up right-leaning independents and moderates. The vast majority of Sanders and Warren people aren't going to vote for Trump anyway. I think Tulsi appeals to the on-the-fence demographic more than any of the other female candidates. War veteran, pretty smart, hip, command presence, etc. It might not make a huge difference who he picks, but sometimes these races boil down to a game of inches.
She would be at the top of my list. But I'd be shocked if it happened.
There was a time I was very, very positive on Tulsi...and that includes the many times I saw her interviewed. But then came along the campaign...and it was like a Jekell and Hyde transformation. The more she said during the campaign, the less I liked her. By the end...I was hoping she would leave the Democratic Party and become a Republican.
I would bet big bucks she will not be the choice.
I still like Kamela Harris. That is one tough woman. She's got a lot of strikes against her (so does Joe), but I sure as hell would not want to be debating her. If Pence is the VP choice for Trump (I am thinking he will not be)...Harris would destroy him.
I'd prefer Tulsi to Kamala. Enough with lawyers.
One of my previous jobs involved working with Kamala's DA office. She's the type of person who will say one thing and do the complete opposite. I think she has integrity issues. My politics don't perfectly align with Tulsi's, but I think she is a better strategic choice.
When she dropped to the floor and did a bunch of push-ups she won my heart! :cool:
Don't care for the other females in the mix.
Which interview was this from?
/s
That's the impression I got. In any case, I reckon Biden should go with Warren. I have my issues with her, but she's very sharp and might help balance his softness. And who can get enough of Trump saying 'Pocahontas'? It'd be a fun ride.
:lol:
Glenn Greenwald is an international treasure.
The point about leverage is well made. The Dem establishment has given Anerican progressives a choice between self-castration and four more years of Trump. Essentially, cut your own balls off or we all eat shit. The best response to that is probably, "no, you eat shit and keep eating it until you realize you need us and give us what we want." Progressives/the left ought to organize and unite behind a third party.
I expect many Bernie fans will do that. Too bad, that. It approaches Trumpism (being absurd) more than I want to see any part of the left moving.
Re-think that idea, Baden.
Correct!
Pragmatism is still the most important commodity at this moment.
What's absurd to me is to expect the left to vote for a right-winger who doesn't support universal healthcare and on foreign policy leans more imperialist than Trump. Not only that, but who's fully integrated into a corrupt system where both parties compete for special-interest money.
If you ask yourself who Biden's major donors are, what their price for supporting him is, and how much that price gels with the left's priorities, you should realize there's virtually no overlap there. So with Biden, not only does the left not get what it wants (like with Trump), it's actively responsible for not getting what it wants. It's the difference between being punched in the face vs punching yourself in the face. In only one of those cases can some honor be salvaged.
@frank On socialism. From where I'm standing, it's not about socialism, except maybe to combat excessive corporate socialism. The left will never get anything like socialism in the US, though moderately social-democratic policies might be achievable. Fact is, even European conservatives are to the left of Joe Biden on, for example, healthcare. Far-right economics has been normalised in the US. And that's a global anomaly among major developed nations. So, it's more about the systemic corruption that explains that anomaly and makes your elections irrelevant except on culture-war issues. You're allowed to have Identity politics because special interests can make money from it. It's not a threat. You're not allowed to have a rational healthcare system or a fair tax system. You're allowed generous government welfare for corporations, but not for the average person. You're allowed to question American foreign policy, but not the military industrial complex as a whole. And on it goes.
Saying all this, I accept I'm an observer. There's a lot more at stake for you. I can stand back and smile wryly if it all misfires for American liberals / moderates. You have to deal with four more years of having your country run by a baboon. So fwiw my sentiments are firmly behind American progressives who've had enough and will be fighting both parties, and the two party system that spawned them, in November. However, I'm open to arguments from the other side as long as they address the issues I've raised. Just saying "pragmatism" doesn't cut it. I see your pragmatism and raise you principle.
*Shrug* Insofar as you don't have any arguments, it doesn't matter what you think.
In 2016 that kind of thinking got us Trump. In 2020 that kind of thinking will get us four more years of Trump.
Do whatever you want. As for me...I would vote for Satan in order to be rid of Trump.
:up:
I think you may be on the opposing side here and be ready to kick my ass. :razz:
My "position" is that Biden is head and shoulders a better choice than Trump as a leader...and as an advancement toward a more progressive society than Trump. And since the choice will be between Trump and Biden...my total support should be extended to him.
I am not sure what your "position" is...but if it is not "Let's have more of Trump"...you are on the wrong road.
I just wrote four paragraphs on it. See above. One issue is that if you define yourself entirely negatively with regard to the opposing side, you don't put any pressure on your side to give you what you want. This plays into the hands of politicians who aren't actually interested in what you want because their focus is providing policies for their donors. That's what their political survival depends on, not you, who they rely on simply to fall in line as long as they find a reason to distinguish themselves from the opposition while not sacrificing their ability to please who really matters to them. Personality politics is one way to do this. So, I get you'll support Biden, but do you think I'm wrong on any of the above. And, if so, why?
It doesn't matter what ideology or world-view someone has, no one benefits from Trump's incompetence and it doesn't matter who challenges him, as long as they are competent enough to keep stability. Under stability, we have the time and balance to question ideological ideas and debate specifics of politics, but the clusterfuck of incompetence negates that playing field.
No one in their right mind, no one rational who is capable of deductive thinking would ever propose Trump to stay in power, or getting that power in the first place. His presidency was the result of a nihilistic narcissism, greed and boredom in the voters who voted for him. People who wanted to create chaos against others because of a jealousy towards the educated.
The problem might be that there are only two choices in each election. Because when someone like Trump appears, the party belonging to that candidate need to vote for that candidate in order to get the power, even though the candidate is mentally incompetent to lead. So, on one hand, you have the nihilistic people wanting to just create chaos and on the other the republicans who have no choice but to vote Republican since they cannot choose a Democrat.
It's fundamentally broken as a form of democracy, enforcing a demagogical result every time.
It's interesting that any occupation in the world need education before handled, sometimes, in cases of dangerous jobs, it needs a specific license. But in the case of the leadership of a nation, no such certification or license is needed, even though the occupation is one of the most dangerous we have. I would argue that the bar to which we hold the standards of politicians in roles as leaders should be much higher. I would argue that while Plato was wrong in his philosopher-king argument, he is right in that they need to be philosophers.
We need a philosopher-republic instead, in which the ones able to be voted into power can only have that position with the right competence in philosophy and leadership. So that whoever is voted into power, they have a basic competence in order to enforce stability. That way we would minimize the risk of chaos and incompetence in politics that is downright lethal to the people.
Sounds good to me, Christoffer.
Apparently, in a "civilized democracy" not voting for a candidate who doesn't represent your values or the policies you want to see enacted is an unacceptably ideological and nihilistic position that would cause chaos. Democracy means doing what you're told and propping up a failing and corrupt system until a philosopher-king gets into power. Sounds legit, as they say.
It was good enough for Frederick Douglass, it's good enough for me. It's an American thing, you dont need to understand it.
I've no interest in these silly face-saving comments. I'm not anti-American and you can give yourself a pat on the head for everything your country has achieved. Now you either have an argument based on something I said or you don't, Frank. So far, you don't.
Go on then. Quote me and tell me why I'm wrong. That's all I expect of anyone here.
There is corruption in the US. It's not worse or better than it's always been, though, and somehow elections do continue to shape events.
American history testifies that no election changes things like widespread social unrest. We can't plan for those events though. We certainly couldnt, and in fact wouldnt want to plan for a catastrophe that would radically reorganize the economic structure of the US.
Therefore it makes sense to take these calm in-between times as an opportunity to lay foundations. I think this is view in keeping with traditional English socialism: one step at a time.
I'm on a phone, so I'm brief.
I can modify it to elections are "largely" irrelevant except for... etc and on the economic front that seems fairly accurate to me as the neoliberal consensus has held since it took off in the eighties. Re laying foundations for socialism or whatnot, I would be very modest in my goals for the US. What I would want for Americans (including the family I have over there) is simple stuff like paid sick leave, paid maternity leave, universal healthcare, affordable college education, a fair tax system, better social security etc*. And what I'm arguing is that if the Dems don't offer that they should not expect to be given the support of those who want it. If enough progressives make it clear that this is the deal, the Dems might be forced to make some changes. If progressives jump on the Biden train now, they'll get nothing. You don't pay for a free hamburger.
*And, of course, take the money out of politics. Nothing good is going to come out of having a system that essentially legalizes bribes.
That's a relief! :sweat:
It was the 1960s, not 1980s.
Quoting Baden
I'm sorry your American relatives don't have those things. Where are they situated in terms of education level and employment?
Can you imagine, this is supposed to be the 'sensible' position? Fantasy gone wild - suicidal.
Don't be silly. Your top tax rate in 1960, for example, was 91%.
Besides, just look it up.
"Neoliberalism constituted a paradigm shift away from the post-war Keynesian consensus which had lasted from 1945 to 1980."
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism.
Quoting frank
Back to nonsense. Universal healthcare is not determined by education and employment. Hence, the name.
Sorry, I misinterpreted your phrase "took off." Neoconservatism "took off" in the 1960s in the sense that it started then.
Quoting Baden
Ok.
I was talking about neoliberalism.
Can you give a name associated with it?
Clinton and Blair are big ones.
Not voting or voting third party is a vote for Trump (unless in a safe state). We have a clear choice: decide who the most damaging candidate is, and vote against that person.
If you can't decide who the worst is, after 3 years of Trump, or somehow equate Biden and Trump, then Trump is exactly what we deserve for the next four years.
At last you got it.
Oh.
It's the dominant economic paradigm anyhow. Trump is a slight aberration, but he mostly tows the line.
"At last"? This implies I've talked about this a lot with you, yet don't remember doing so at all.
There's nothing to "get," beyond making a choice any 8-year-old could make and which many on here seem to be struggling with.
Yeah, obviously.
So you're saying that American liberals just sort of sold out, right?
It depends on what you mean by "sold out". A certain class looked after its own interests economically. It included social conservatives and social liberals.
Greenspan was an economic conservative.
Ideologically, Hayek, Friedman. In terms of events, the 70s economic crises. Politicians, Thatcher and Reagan. In general, the rich and monied looking for ways to maximize their slice of the economic pie.
Concentration of wealth put them into a position to further concentrate it, right?
Yes and https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buckley_v._Valeo
Concentration of wealth combined with money in politics leads to political competition for that money with the currency of exchange being political favors. It's the voters who are sidelined.
I'm trying to get you to back up and look at it as a natural historian. Take the emotion and the need to moralize out it for a second.
Sure, but what's new since the Boomer generation is the hugely increased wealth and opportunity gap.
See, e.g. https://www.amazon.com/Our-Kids-American-Dream-Crisis/dp/1476769907
Anyway, my bedtime.
You're kind of a dumbass, tho.
None of this is about me... Or what I like to be called. We were talking about historical facts. I'm not a historical figure. Yet :starstruck:
Not for everyone. Just look it up, Frank. You're not teaching anyone anything here. Goodnight.
I thought you were using "liberal" in the 19th Century European way.
So you didnt agree that concentration of wealth undermines democracy? That's bizarre.
Last one. I do agree with that. If that's all you meant. We are in agreement. G'night.
This is an opinion...only an opinion:
Any American who votes in a way that helps Trump retain the presidency does a disservice to America and the world on a par with the people who helped bring Adolf Hitler to power...and who helped retain him in power.
Vote for him; withhold your vote; vote for a third party candidate...that is your right. But in my opinion, if you do...you are aiding and abetting something akin to having aided and abetted Hitler.
Here here.
English-speakers have used the term "neoliberalism" since the start of the 20th century with different meanings,[17] but it became more prevalent in its current meaning in the 1970s and 1980s, used by scholars in a wide variety of social sciences[18][19] as well as by critics.[20][21] The term is rarely used by proponents of free market policies.[22] Some scholars have described the term as meaning different things to different people as neoliberalism has "mutated" into geopolitically distinct hybrids as it travelled around the world.[23][24][5] As such, neoliberalism shares many attributes with other concepts that have contested meanings, including representative democracy.[25]
The definition and usage of the term have changed over time.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism
Sure, and you'd have to be a moron not to recognize it's predominant contemporary usage. Or just ignorant, take your pick.
Fuck off lol.
Name-calling is the hallmark of a childish mind.
Rarely does a love of wisdom produce such smallness of soul.
You're both just fine with this?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/apr/24/joe-biden-sexual-assault-claim-tara-reade-deserves-to-be-heard-katie-halper
The partisan Kool-aid dissolves all rational and moral sense among the sheeple.
You should work up the guts to say where you are from...then give lectures on how NOT to run an election or a campaign properly.
If you have never voted for someone based on the notion "the better of two not delightful choices"...chances are you are not allowed to vote.
In any case...all his life, Joe Biden has been fighting for the things I think would make the world a much better place. He is, in my opinion, an excellent choice for the job...AND YES, THE FACT THAT HE IS NOT TRUMP SHOULD BE MENTIONED EVERY DAY OF THE CAMPAIGN.
That fact should be of importance to every human with a functioning brain everywhere, not just to Americans, because Trump is a danger to the entire planet.
No, I am not fine with it. I am not fine with any stories of men, particularly men of power, allowing themselves to behave toward women in ways half as far over the line as this.
But I do not know the whole story...and no matter what, Joe Biden is a MUCH, MUCH, MUCH better choice than Trump...and the choice will be between Joe Biden and Trump.
As I said earlier (and I thank you for providing me with an opportunity to repeat):
Any American who votes in a way that helps Trump retain the presidency does a disservice to America and the world on a par with the people who helped bring Adolf Hitler to power...and who helped retain him in power.
By saying things like this, you are guaranteed to alienate progressives and independents, who you need to win. So, if your goal with your posts on this site is to do everything possible to get Trump reelected, you're doing a fantastic job.
If you want to think that is what's happening...that you actually care about how people react to posts on an obscure, not especially active Internet forum...
...you might want to change your position rather than commenting on the efficacy of the content of others.
Quoting Frank Apisa
And this is just a fucking joke. Biden, who fought for bus segregation in schools? Who, as late as 2003, eulogised segregationist Strom Thurmond as those 'among his closest friends'? Biden, who let Anita Hill get shit all over in her sexual assault allegations in the Clarence hearings? Biden, who is likely a sexual predator himself and who enjoys touching and sniffing young women - in fact young girls - in public? Biden, who supported the Iraq War unconditionally? Biden, whose support of and engineering of Clinton's Crime Bill led the US to have among the highest rates of incarceration in the world? Biden, who supported DOMA? Biden, who enthusiastically stripped bankruptcy protections from private student loans and helped entrench and expand the sprawling the American debt state? Biden, who has, throughout his career, argued for - and attained - cuts to social security? Biden, who was at Obama's right hand as he laid waste to the Middle East, bailed out Wall Street, deported hundreds and thousands of migrants, and continued a drone war which murdered hundreds of civilians?
Biden has done more harm to the US and the world in his decades long career in politics than Trump could ever aspire to. Trump is a self-interested illiterate wanker doing the bidding of his Republican overloads. Biden's a true fucking believer - he only happened to do it with a bit of charisma, which even now he's lost to the creeping onset of dementia. Biden has fought all his life to make the world a worse place to live in for everyone, and he's been incredibly successful in doing so. For the student-debt problem alone - which, incidentally, he acted in place of credit companies who had given him hundreds and thousands in corporate donations - Biden deserves to be disembowled in public by a pack of hungry rats.
People like you, not just on this forum, but across America will get Trump reelected. You are his greatest asset and are doing everything he would want you to do. For free. Congratulations.
The unique fauna of Oz have apparently eaten your brain.
Nothing of any worth will come from your attempts to use it.
No, Baden...people like you are the problem.
Okay...you cannot see it...and it may lead to more of Trump.
And, like you people did in 2016...you people while attempt to shirk the responsibility.
You folk do resemble Trump in that. Perhaps that is why you are doing it.
Some sort of exotic fungus maybe.
He's not a problem. He's irrelevant.
In terms of having a vote, correct. In terms of knowing what I'm talking about, those tables are turned.
Quoting Frank Apisa
Have you got any substantive defence against @StreetlightX's statements about Biden's policy positions? It's possible to have a conversation about that.
:up:
People like me, whether in America or elsewhere, will vote for politicians who represent what they believe in. Biden does not represent what progressives or the left believe in. Ergo, many of our ilk won't vote for him (some will, but many won't). So, if he and his supporters want more of the left's vote, he needs to give the left something of substance. The Nazi angle is not going to work just from a pragmatic viewpoint (leaving aside the absurdity of it for a moment).
Yes to both of your comments there, Frank.
One of the things he said was, "Biden has done more harm to the US and the world in his decades long career in politics than Trump could ever aspire to. "
That IS a statement about Biden's policy positions.
And I do have something of substance to say about it:
That comment is so fucking nuts...that anyone attempting to comment on it further than what I am saying right here, is also fucking nuts.
Comment further if you want, Baden, but I won't.
They might be trying to compensate for being profoundly irrelevant.
"Believe in"...huh?
People like you are the reason people...
...like Voltaire said, "The best is the enemy of the good"...
...like Confucius wrote, "Better a diamond with a flaw than a pebble without"...
...like Shakespeare had Albany declare, “Striving to better, oft we mar what's well.”
Tell you what, frank, stop talking about everything outside the US and I might take you seriously, otherwise it just sounds like you are sore because of a few things street said.
And the specific policy positions mentioned? You agree Biden took those positions or not?
:lol:
I guess I'll have to refrain from commenting to the effect that Street and Baden are right.
Anyone reading what he wrote...after reading the sentence I quoted...if a fool.
I am not a fool.
Sounds like that would be a smart move on your part, Jam.
Thanks for providing sources on some of what I listed, all of which simply repeat what I said :) I do indeed hope people read about it for themselves, given that people like Frank are so incapable of even remotely addressing any of the points raised that the best they can settle for are pearl-clutching and ad homs.
Also, I have no doubt that you cannot make sense of a great deal, but perhaps if you take your morning vitamins you may just be able to get through a couple of paragraphs without overloading your minimal brain capacity:
"In 1975, Biden was representing a state where one of the first major urban school desegregation plans had been ordered by a court. Many white parents in the Wilmington area were angry. In response, Biden sponsored not just the bill limiting courts’ power but also an amendment to an appropriations bill that barred the federal government from withholding funding from schools that remained effectively segregated.
...Biden’s anti-integration efforts didn’t end in 1975. Two years later, he co-authored a bill that barred federal courts from ordering busing plans unless courts found evidence of discriminatory intent. That legislation failed. A 1977 report on school desegregation by the Civil Rights Commission, a federal agency, described Biden’s activities as stymieing school integration.
Federal data analyzed by Johnson and other researchers shows that busing succeeded in narrowing racial achievement gaps before frontal assaults and legislative maneuvers by Biden and others rendered it easier for districts under court order to be released from integration demands".
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/joe-biden-didn-t-just-compromise-segregationists-he-fought-their-n1021626
And this is?:
Quoting Frank Apisa
But, fine, have a look at street's latest post and I'd also be happy to list sources and quotes therein that explicate why Biden is so unpalatable to much the left. Let's debate it on that basis.
Never mind, I think we got it covered. :wink:
Baden...keep your cool.
Biden is far from perfect...and he was low on the list of those I was hoping would win.
Early on I got in a very heated debate with my sister...because my position was that Sanders was the guy would should win. My arguments with her were filled with, "If the Democrats are going to settle for Republican lite...fuck 'em.
Of course, I live in New Jersey, where Trump would lose to Satan...so at that time I was content with, "Bernie can do it...and we at least owe our conscience an attempt."
The conservatives did that back in 1964 against a rather unpopular LBJ. The Electoral College vote ended up at 486 - 52...and we know who got the 52, because nobody ever mentions the late President Goldwater.
Things change. They did for Biden on the issues mentioned.
And right now I stick with what I said above:
Any American who votes in a way that helps Trump retain the presidency does a disservice to America and the world on a par with the people who helped bring Adolf Hitler to power...and who helped retain him in power.
There is more truth in that...than in EVERYTHING you and Streetlight have written.
Oh you don't know? Maybe you should ask Joe Biden, who was so worried about his conduct that he issued a half-hearted apology to Hill which to this day she has not accepted:
"As committee chairman, Biden was responsible for calling and questioning witnesses, for controlling the pace of testimony and cross-examination and for defining the tenor of the hearing. His critics say he failed in each regard, calling witnesses inimical to Hill while failing to call corroborating witnesses, forcing Hill to describe in graphic detail scenes of harassment she had suffered, and in general failing to defend Hill’s vulnerability and to direct the hearing. “Can you tell the committee what was the most embarrassing of all the incidences that you have alleged?” Biden asked Hill at one point.
“He absolutely failed at almost every point to take control of the event and to make it dignified and safe for Anita Hill,” said Michie [, Helena director of the Center for the Study of Women, Gender, and Sexuality at Rice University in Texas - SX]. “The other thing he did is that he made her repeat in detail every sexual allegation in front of this panel. And she said repeatedly, ‘It’s all in writing, you have it all in writing.’ And he would say, ‘I know it’s uncomfortable, but we have to do it.'"
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/apr/27/jor-biden-anita-hill-clarence-thomas-1991-hearings
Shall we go through the rest of the list? Do you want to go on? Tell me more about the supposed inaccuracies I'm peddling. If Biden was black you'd no doubt be accusing me of being racist too. Too bad you don't get to use that one hey? Must be very sad for you. No worse than being an ignorant ass about history though.
I won't expect you to understand, since it's nuanced, but no I'm not. I don't like Biden at all, nor am I a "self-righteous Dem" -- I'm pointing out a simple choice: Trump or Biden. Biden's an old, senile establishment Democrat of the Clinton-Obama machine. It doesn't take genius to see that. What requires another 30 seconds of thought, which you apparently fail to do, is to compare him to Trump and see which will cause the country (and the world) more damage in the next four years. Then you hold your nose and vote against the worst choice, especially in a swing state. This is not an endorsement for Biden or the Democratic party. It's not "selling out." It's a simple choice.
If still unconvinced, ask yourself another question: Who can be pressured more to adopt progressive policies, like the policies Sanders was advocating -- Trump or Biden? That's another important consideration, quite apart from policy differences (like that of climate change).
So no, the point isn't a matter of "being fine" with the candidate the DNC has deemed worthy of the nomination. I can't stand him, but I will vote for him -- as I did for Hillary in 2016, which was the correct thing to do given the assumption that we would like the best chances to go on as a species. We have the same unfortunate choice in 2020. And yet many people, including you apparently, still struggle with it. Should take 3 minutes to decide what to do here.
He admitted he was wrong in his lack of support for her.
I campaigned for Bernie, so I guess that makes me "progressive." I was and still am livid at the DNC's shenanigans (for the second time).
I'm not alienated in the least. Trump isn't Hitler, but those so repulsed by Biden will help him get re-elected if they don't vote or vote third party. That's both inexcusable and infinitely stupid. If this were the 90s, maybe I'd understand. But the stakes are too high now for protest votes and pouting at home.
Wow four paragraphs and not a thing to say about Biden but about everything but. It's almost like it's all irrelevant :chin:
American electoral politics has been a ratchet mechanism for the last two generations, with each click of the wheel forestalled only by a momentary holding pattern before plunging straight back into reactionary hell again. Voting for a Trumpian catalyst is a prolongation of pain, not an anaesthetic to it.
Sure, Trump will be re-elected and continue destroying both the planet and the economy for four years, appointing another 2 Supreme Court justices for a lifetime, etc. -- but at least we'll feel better.
"Brownshirts" lmao
:love:
That point has hardly been "missed."
Quoting StreetlightX
No, it isn't. A vote for Biden is a vote to get Trump out of office. Then the work continues: not the analysis of armchair philosophers and political hobbyists, but of real political organizing and activism which will continue to pressure the administration into incorporating progressive policies.
That's how change is done, not by simply voting every four years and especially not voting for the the worst president in history (or contributing to his re-election with a sanctimonious "vote of conscience.")
Quoting StreetlightX
Riveting analysis. Now run along and help Trump get re-elected.
I don't remember you ever denying being a pedophile, tim. Can you direct me to where you did that?
See what you're doing? Don't do it.
"Won't adopt any of your ideas."
Yeah, to political hobbyists like you, who do nothing except give your very deep political analysis (and thankful we all are for it) every four years, it's a foregone conclusion that no ideas will be adopted. (Hint: because you do nothing.)
Your conclusion: let's make sure we convince enough people to vote third party, or just sit out, and thus help Trump secure another 4 years.
Such brilliant logic.
Yes, when someone suggests their interlocutor is a racist for no reason whatsoever but merely to try to smear them, I would agree that is disgusting.
Last time I checked, 'being held electorally hostage' was not in the activist playbook, but I suppose Americans do things weird.
More brilliance.
Try Twitter.
I didn't see that. I don't know who you mean. I guess the forum would just be quiet without a cesspool thread?
I'm sailing! Waaaah!
You'll fit right in. Better match for you.
Oh I didn't censor them [####].
It's exactly analogous. And I censored street's comments, not him. Anyway, please just stop it now. We're talking about Biden's record here. Accusations or provocations like that will be deleted.
Yeah, you and "Big Money Hustla" make strong points.
Forget who will or won't vote for him. Can anyone tell me what he offers progressives?
He's already agreed to a $15 minimum wage, thanks to trying to court Bernie voters. He's much more open to progressive environmental policies than Trump, which is crucial. He's also rather empty as a candidate and thus, as I mentioned before (and which people like you always ignore), he will be much more easily pressured than a Trump presidency, who will continue to take us backward.
That's the choice progressives have. No one is saying they like Biden, no one is saying they condone rape, no one is saying the Democrats are wonderful, etc etc.
Biden is a terrible candidate? Amazing -- you've figured this all out already. Tell us more.
And then believe - against all rationality - that they might actually give progressive causes anything at all when the bone they threw was a segregationist rapist warmonger as a consolation prize.
Let me make it as simple as I can for you:
It's precisely that we want to have an administration we can influence (we progressives), thus being the exact OPPOSITE of "carte blanche." We want to either destroy or take over the DNC, as Bernie has started to do.
Thus we need to push for the election of this senile neoliberal (alleged) rapist. It's a terrible choice, but that's the system -- what's the alternative? The alternative is Trump, where we have 0 say -- nothing. No chance of any policies being adopted, and will in fact have to fight to not have the polices we like completely gutted. We watch on as he appoints more judges to the appellate courts and the Supreme Court (for lifetime tenor).
If you and Baden still refuse to acknowledge this point, there's no sense pretending to be rational. Let's just behave like it's Twitter.
But you have to be delusional to think that this is what Biden will enable. Why in the world would the DNC offer anything when the apoplexia of "imagine the other guy" causes people to fall in line no matter how terrible the line is? (case in point: this thread). Give them this and they will browbeat you with it by offering a quantum up from the political minima, forever. If you're not willing to hold them accountable now, exactly when? Tomorrow, when the Republican party has a come-to-Jesus moment? When the cows come home, and the DNC know this; you, apparently, do not.
Yes, as I've said before, nobody pays for a free hamburger. There is zero incentive for the DNC to do anything for progressives unless the left desert them en masse now. Therefore, that's what they should do, leaving two possible outcomes.
1) Dems come to their senses and change their policies.
2) Dems lose and realize they're going to have to come to their senses and change their policies if they ever want to get their guy elected again.
Alternative: They win and never come to their senses and change their policies.
I truly wish I could give this a more dignified review, Street...but the most honest comment I can make about this involves just two words: Bull shit. In fact, I might have done it in one word (bullshit)...but using just one word would have been unnecessarily insulting.
So...
...BULL SHIT.
He offers them freedom from Trump...and the damage he can do.
When I was asked a form of this question during the 2016 run-up, I answered that same way.
Now the names Gorsuch and Kavanaugh come to mind. So do the 200 federal judges confirmed so far.
You can't keep up with me...don't even try.
Instead, put some time into actually thinking.
But if you OrGaNiZe and be an AcTiVisT they will name a National Burger Day (after a woman chef) and Trump wouldn't do that! ha! Checkmate commie scum.
You might as well not vote.
The difference between Trump and Biden is marginal from any perspective but the US perspective. That's because those differences are played to maximum effect in US media to give voters a feeling that they have a choice. It plays right into the identity politics of being Republican or Democratic.
I've voted for a Conservative Liberal party, greens, Labour Party, animal rights party and Christian party (not in that order) due to changing personal views over time but mostly because of policy proposals I wanted to support. I don't see this flexibility with US voters; Dems think Reps are stupid and vice versa. Meanwhile, both parties serve you policy turds and you thank them for the privilege depending on which party had your loyalty.
Because it is...and for no other reason.
Okay...then don't vote.
If you want to delude yourself into thinking the difference between Trump and Biden is "marginal" and not immense, have at it.
Delusions are a dime a dozen.
With a parliamentary government that is possible...and even reasonable. Do you live in a country with a parliamentary government?
If so...why the hell are you judging how to vote in a system which essentially will be a choice A or B?
Learn the difference...then come back and make sense.
He's already made concessions. I mentioned some already. Is it more or less "delusional" than believing Trump will be swayed by pressure?
Quoting StreetlightX
Electing Trump isn't holding them accountable. You hold them accountable as you've always have -- not simply by throwing a vote away every four years because it makes you feel better, but by the hard work of organizing and pressuring administrative leadership every day, week after week. That's the only hope.
Ask yourself how the democratic party has changed so far. Was it by electing Trump in 2016? No. It was Bernie Sanders and his campaign, which organized millions of people and resulted in the creation of progressive programs (like the Green New Deal) and which continued fighting for the last four years.
You also completely underestimate how dire the straits are right now for the environment, and the impact Trump will have with his band of oil executives running the EPA. This is no time to play games because we're angry Bernie lost.
Only because you make it so. You're caught in the circular logic of saying you need to do what makes it necessary for you to do what you do.
This is your reasoning?
Or 3: progressives elect Biden and continue to hold his feet to the flame -- something which is totally impossible with a Trump administration. This is the option that matters, not throwing a vote away which the DNC could just as easily interpret as they wish (like they did in 2016). The real work is in activism every day, not in playing games every four years.
Let them impeach Biden if it becomes clear he's guilty of rape or going senile. Who cares. It's not about the person, it's about the real world and the real chances of effecting change.
With Trump, there's zero chance -- none.
Or the environmental regulations being destroyed, the Paris Accords being scrapped, the climate change denial of the former oil lobbyists now running the EPA, etc.
At a time when scientists are telling us we have very little time to waste in tacking climate change, we're here having to argue not to throw votes away? And after 2016, too -- in which their "strategy" succeeded. (So much for the DNC learning the error of their ways.)
It's mind-blowing.
Right, so let's throw votes away and re-elect Trump. Because THAT'S what changed the DNC in 2016, of course -- not this silly "organizing and activism" (ridiculed like a teenager on Twitter), which is a waste of time.
What a buffoon. Like I have said repeatedly to you: you'll fit in better with Twitter.
In many ways, both those "marginal differences" in the most powerful country on Earth actually do make a difference. Although in this case, it's not always so marginal. Again I come back to climate change: check out the approaches and decide who's more damaging. One wants to take small steps towards renewable energy (not nearly enough); one says it's a Chinese hoax and wants to prop up the coal industry.
Still "marginal"?
No, he's being realistic. That's the unfortunate choice -- it'll be Biden or Trump. That's A or B. What requires delusion is voting for Donald Trump again, which is what you're advocating. Third party and no vote is a vote for Trump. That's simple arithmetic.
If you cared more about the real world and getting real progressive policies through, you wouldn't be advocating for revenge, as if the DNC will hear you loud and clear. People were saying exactly the same thing in 2016. I'm sure the last 3 years has been great for you, but those of us who care about the future would have preferred an administration we could actually pressure for more and more sensible policies rather than have to spend time fighting to keep the measly ones we still have.
I'm advocating for progressives to say this to the Dems:
"Give us what we want or fuck off."
It's clear, simple, and the only thing that has a hope of getting the weasels in the DNC to take on significant progressive policies.
I would love to do that more than anyone. There's no proof that that works, and it was tried in 2016. We simply can't afford to do it again, because it really does matter who's in office. It doesn't mean letting the DNC off the hook for what they've done -- far from it.
Quoting Baden
OK, I just disagree with this I guess. Where is the evidence this is true? What happened in 2016 changed very little -- what changed was the continued fight of Bernie Sanders supporters and the offshoots of that campaign, in advocating for $15 minimum wage, Medicare for All, a Green New Deal, etc. etc. at the local and state level. Which is where all progress happens, in reality.
Bernie understands all of this too. It's not because he's a "sell out," it's because he understands the urgency of removing Trump, given this time in history.
Yes, and in 2016 the Dems didn't listen because they were sure Hillary would win. They ain't so sure now, I can tell you. And: Never ever give something away for free that could be used as leverage to get something in return.
No, electing Trump was tried in 2016. That actually happened, in no small degree thanks to those who sat out or voted third party (or even for Trump, in roughly 8% of Sanders supporters). So what was the outcome? Three years of Trump's destructive policies, and no effect on the DNC.
And you want to try it again.
Quoting Baden
Electing Biden is by no means "free." It will come at a very major cost indeed.
Or we help elect Trump and have to spend the next four years defending the policies that he hasn't yet destroyed, while losing the courts to a generation of conservative judges.
Not a hard choice.
I tell you what's not a hard choice, not bending the knee now when you've got nothing. At the very least, withdraw your support and act like you want something. You can always still vote for the useless git in the end. You are doing the only thing that will guarantee the DNC will completely ignore progressive priorities.
Actually that's exactly what it is and no amount of double-speak will change that fact. Elections are quite literally mechanisms of accountability, and if you have pretend that that isn't the case just to try and make a point, you've lost the rhetorical plot. Confidently asserting the literal opposite of the case doesn't make it true. Maybe you've learnt one too many lessons from Trump. Or the DNC for that matter. Next you'll be telling me war is peace and that triangles are actually circles.
Quoting Xtrix
Food scraps for electoral hostages, which you're begging to remain. It's a kind of Stockholm syndrome - falling in love with your hostage taker because they've let you pee in the toilet that one time.
Electoral gaslighting - "look what you made me do". DNC lackey.
No wonder America's so fucked up - a place where voters get blamed for the inadequacies of parties, and where people can convince themselves that elections aren't a question of accountability. Wild.
See, the problem is you think this is a difference of persons. It's not. I already explained the power in the USA is held by the respective parties. The "great" differences you see, are a reflection of which party is bought by which interests. It's not meaningful to say "they're both corrupt but he's destroying the environment". So you'll save the environment by losing your privacy. What kind of choice is that?
I totally get that you feel you have to make a choice but to think you're a moral actor with agency in this story is what I think is delusional. It's like having a gun to your head with someone demanding you shoot someone or they will shoot two persons. Morally, it makes no difference what you choose as the choosing has already been done by the person with the gun. In this analogy your two parties are holding a gun. You don't have actual choices only the illusion of one.
The upside to Trump and even 4 more years of Trump, is that the Western automatic acquiescence to US interests is waning as it should be. Respect has to be earned instead of assumed. Voting a senile old bat because he isn't Trump isn't going to change that.
In November of this year, Baden...unless something catastrophic happens, the choice for Americans will be between the nominee of the Republican party (presumably Trump) and the nominee of the Democratic Party (presumably Joe Biden)...and it is my opinion that anyone with a functioning brain should do everything possible to elect the Democratic Party nominee over the Republican Party nominee.
If you want to think I am the reason this is happening rather than that it is the result of the way things have functioned for the last 250 years...feel free to do so. If you want to think that I...or a group of us here in American...can change that between today and November...feel free to do so.
I prefer to go with sanity.
Okay?
It is indeed. And so is the reasoning Baden is using in this argument. He normally makes lots of sense. I have no idea of what kind of bug has gotten up his ass right now, but I wish he would just pull with the rest of us...or just get the hell out of the way.
Sure. Who's saying otherwise? We're talking about actually voting, not rolling over to the DNC.
Wonderful. It worked well last time, didn't it?
This is true only for those who believe pushing a button every four years it the most important thing we can do. It isn't. This unfortunate choice should take us a few minutes -- you vote against the worst, case closed. Then you continue pushing for progressive policies, which is the only way things change. Electing Trump makes any chance of these policies happening impossible.
But it makes some of us believe we're really doing something, I guess. I have the unfortunate experience of living in the real world, though. But continue with your super-smart, dime-a-dozen analyses from a different country.
Lol.
It's just a fact, actually: voting third party or sitting out helped elect Trump. That's not "gaslighting," and quite apart from blaming people. I understand their frustrations. I mentioned Bernie supporters voting for Trump in 2016 (roughly 1 in 10, I believe) -- that helped as well.
If you're too dense not to acknowledge these simple facts, that's your business.
Everyone knows both parties are beholden to corporate interests. That goes without saying. What you continually ignore is the reality of differences between the two factions of the business party ( Democrats and Republicans), differences which actually do matter. I mentioned an important one: climate change policy. One party denies it's happening, the other wants to take baby steps forward (but not enough). Forget which is more dangerous -- just acknowledge the difference. Then ask who'd be more willing to implement better policies (Trump wants to gut CO2 and methane emisssion regulations remember).
The details matter. It's very easy to just say "It's all the same" -- and maybe allows you to feel satisfied in your superior knowledge of politics -- but doing a little work helps come out of this simplistic Nickelodeon analysis.
Quoting Benkei
This is exactly what I mean. So assuming that's true (which I don't) -- losing our privacy is equally as important as our species dying off? Fine, then you still vote for Biden -- why? Because Trump will both destroy the environment AND we lose our privacy.
Ah yes, not rolling over to the DNC by ... doing exactly what the DNC wants. I suppose this is much like how voting is not a matter of accountability. Did you know the color black is actually the color white? Nah, you're probably too dense to acknowledge this simple fact.
You offer literal contradictions and expect to be taken seriously. What a joke.
Yes, much like how the mobilization of hunderds and thousands of people worked so well to gain Bernie the nomination hey? This is what you don't get: the game is rigged, and the DNC don't give a shit about your activism, and never have and never will, because you'll vote for them anyway. You're a sucker and everyone but you knows it.
Okay bud, you're right. Your expert adolescent analysis is too overwhelming. Let's teach those DNC guys a lesson they'll never forget and elect TRUMP again! That's the ticket! Worked wonders in 2016 after all. Eventually they'll understand and change. Fingers crossed!
You're too stupid to understand, but mobilizing hundreds of thousands of people is exactly what has changed the DNC, regardless of their robbing Bernie from the nomination. But since understanding this requires details and more than a Twitter-length response, I'll just skip it.
Anyone else interested, let me know.
Yes I can see how the DNC changed mightily by literally nominating the next in line from the Obama administration. The discontinuity is jarring! Change galore.
God they must love people like you.
Yeah, I'm awful I agree. Now by all means go get Trump elected again.
It's like people who support Biden are totally incapable of coherent argumentation.
Which makes sense. There's no there there.
Yeah, that's the reason. :)
Quoting StreetlightX
Quoting StreetlightX
Quoting StreetlightX
Quoting StreetlightX
Hmmm...
Stahp.
Just having fun. Dickless means well, I'm sure. But I have low tolerance for people who outright refuse to learn.
Stahp means stahp. You've been warned. Don't refuse moderation.
(Also, an answer to the eternal question, the moderators moderate the moderators)
Suppose Biden is elected. I would anticipate it would be essentially a continuation of Obama -- nothing very great, but at least not totally destructive, and with opportunities for an organized public to change what's being done and to impose pressures.
It's common to say now that the Sanders campaigned failed. I think that's a mistake. I think it was an extraordinary success. Completely shifted the arena of debate and discussion, issues that were unthinkable a couple of years ago are now right in the middle of attention. The worst crime he committed in the eyes of the establishment is not the policies he was proposing, it was the fact that he was able to inspire popular movements (which had already been developing --e.g., Occupy, Black Lives Matter, many others) and turned them into an activist movement which doesn't just show up every couple years to pull a lever and then go home, but applies constant pressure and constant activism.
That could effect a Biden administration. We've seen some striking examples. Take the Green New Deal. A couple of years ago that was an object of ridicule if it was mentioned at all. Now it's part of the general agenda. Why? Activist engagement. Especially the Sunrise Movement [...]
With a Biden presidency there would be if not a strongly sympathetic administration at least one that can be reached, can be pressured -- and that's very important. There's a very good labor historian, Erik Loomis, who's studied the efforts by working people to institute changes in the society...he's made an interesting point: these efforts have succeeded when there was a tolerant or sympathetic administration, not when there wasn't. That's a big -- one of many -- enormous differences between Trump, a sociopath, and Biden -- who's pretty empty, can push him one way or another.
This is the most crucial election in human history, literally. Another four years of Trump and we're in deep trouble."
The above is from Noam Chomsky.
But what does he (or Sanders) know anyway? Better to teach the DNC a lesson (they didn't learn the first time) through voting, thus winning on two fronts: (1) DNC doesn't change at all, and (2) taking out our frustrations by pushing a button without having to engage in that messy "activism" business -- as that is risky and takes sustained effort. The choice is obvious -- to hell with the world! Let is burn. At least our "point" will be made and we'll feel righteous. Because only suckers and sellouts like Bernie Sanders and Noam Chomsky will vote for Biden.
:roll:
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htQKz-nB2Dg
[quote=] The Biden Plan will:
Ensure the U.S. achieves a 100% clean energy economy and reaches net-zero emissions no later than 2050. On day one, Biden will sign a series of new executive orders with unprecedented reach that go well beyond the Obama-Biden Administration platform and put us on the right track. And, he will demand that Congress enacts legislation in the first year of his presidency that: 1) establishes an enforcement mechanism that includes milestone targets no later than the end of his first term in 2025, 2) makes a historic investment in clean energy and climate research and innovation, 3) incentivizes the rapid deployment of clean energy innovations across the economy, especially in communities most impacted by climate change.
Build a stronger, more resilient nation. On day one, Biden will make smart infrastructure investments to rebuild the nation and to ensure that our buildings, water, transportation, and energy infrastructure can withstand the impacts of climate change. Every dollar spent toward rebuilding our roads, bridges, buildings, the electric grid, and our water infrastructure will be used to prevent, reduce, and withstand a changing climate. As President, Biden will use the convening power of government to boost climate resilience efforts by developing regional climate resilience plans, in partnership with local universities and national labs, for local access to the most relevant science, data, information, tools, and training.
Rally the rest of the world to meet the threat of climate change. Climate change is a global challenge that requires decisive action from every country around the world. Joe Biden knows how to stand with America’s allies, stand up to adversaries, and level with any world leader about what must be done. He will not only recommit the United States to the Paris Agreement on climate change – he will go much further than that. He will lead an effort to get every major country to ramp up the ambition of their domestic climate targets. He will make sure those commitments are transparent and enforceable, and stop countries from cheating by using America’s economic leverage and power of example. He will fully integrate climate change into our foreign policy and national security strategies, as well as our approach to trade.
Stand up to the abuse of power by polluters who disproportionately harm communities of color and low-income communities. Vulnerable communities are disproportionately impacted by the climate emergency and pollution. The Biden Administration will take action against fossil fuel companies and other polluters who put profit over people and knowingly harm our environment and poison our communities’ air, land, and water, or conceal information regarding potential environmental and health risks. The Biden plan will ensure that communities across the country from Flint, Michigan to Harlan, Kentucky to the New Hampshire Seacoast have access to clean, safe drinking water. And he’ll make sure the development of solutions is an inclusive, community-driven process.
Fulfill our obligation to workers and communities who powered our industrial revolution and subsequent decades of economic growth. This is support they’ve earned for fueling our country’s industrial revolution and decades of economic growth. We’re not going to leave any workers or communities behind. [/quote]
Eh, sounds good but could be just a bunch of nice words.
Now Trump's climate change plan: "It's a Chinese hoax."
Trump's environmental record so far:
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2017/03/how-trump-is-changing-science-environment/
Just for anyone still wondering if there's a discernible "difference" between the two candidates.
But make sure you don't vote Biden, because doing so means you're a sell-out, or that you like the guy. It also won't teach the DNC a very important lesson!
Here's to another 4 years of Donald Trump! (Sure, our kids and grandkids won't have a planet that's habitable, but at least we will have proven a point -- one that requires no mental or physical effort or risk of any kind.)
Thanks for the link. Oooh... Trump has done something for the environment! Ooooh...
Likely at start the proposal was 13 million acres, but still.
[#####] has a point. DNC made a big mistake putting Biden up.
Here is the charge:
Former aide, Tara Reade, who briefly worked as a staff assistant in Mr. Biden’s Senate office, told The New York Times that in 1993, Mr. Biden pinned her to a wall in a Senate building, reached under her clothing and penetrated her with his fingers.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/12/us/politics/joe-biden-tara-reade-sexual-assault-complaint.html
Let me say this without equivocation: “Pinning” a clothed woman to a wall and managing to “penetrate her” with your fingers…EVEN WITH THE WOMAN’S TOTAL COOPERATION…is one hell of a feat...goddam near impossible. Without her cooperation…I am saying it IS impossible without causing injury that would need immediate medical care...unless the woman is a porn star in the “fisting” section of porn sites and had just finished shooting a segment.
At best, one might be able to “cop a feel” of some pussy hair…but penetrate??? A person would need fingers coated in Vaseline to facilitate penetration of an unaroused, standing, clothed woman. Under those circumstances, the woman would have to be panting in arousal to be wet enough for the penetration to occur without further lubricant.
As I said…something gross and unwanted may have (probably) happened. Joe Biden may have made an unwanted move on the woman…and may have gotten way more “handsy” than any man should have. But the story as suggested leaves more questions in my mind than it furnishes answers about what that “something” was.
Either Ms. Reade was more willing than she acknowledges…or she has accidentally or purposefully embellished the story considerably.
Given it a go, have you?
This is a really sick post.
Uh oh looks like someone's never gotten to third base
Yeah...with the woman's total cooperation. Ended up on the floor before we got hurt.
Anyone who disagrees with me on this has probably never tried it...WITH THE COOPERATION OF THE WOMAN.
Nothing sick about it.
Just something to be considered.
The story Tara Reade told may have a seed of truth...but there is no way he just penetrated her.
I had a period in my life after a divorce where I was promiscuous...banged any woman willing. I was a lucky guy...and there were MANY willing. I had no real bucks, but I WAS a bartender...and the bartender always has a shot at the leftovers. Yeah, some were skanks, but I've had my share of ultra-fine.
If you think you've gotten laid more than I...we can talk more. But you'd have to come up with some big numbers. Luckily, I found the right lady...and have been true blue for 35 years.
No, he's the mirror image of the guy he claims we'd have to be Nazis to support and you're playing the apologist because it's your guy and not a Republican.
Without a consistent line neither of you have any credibility.
Good material.
One thing I noted: "Lack of objection is not consent. "
Precisely.
When I was in my rampage days, I made a deal with myself...and pretty much kept to it diligently.
The was the deal: Only do the deed if the woman says "YES"...and anything less than a specific YES...is to be considered a NO.
There are some women who want to be "dominated" before they "give it up"...and require that the guy "assert" himself.
I think those women are kidding themselves...and I avoided them like the plague. There are plenty who are willing to engage...and give specific consent.
Lack of objection IS NOT CONSENT.
I have not morphed into Trump...and although I previously thought you were a decent, intelligent poster with whom I mostly agreed, I see I was wrong.
You are trolling me...and you are showing yourself to be a small, petty person.
Good luck living that kind of life; I'd sooner be dead.
Projection...on a cosmic scale.
In terms of how you talk about women, you have, I'm afraid.
You said Kavanaugh was, and I quote, "scum" because he, in your opinion, lied about what happened with his accuser. Biden has said these accusations are false. If they are true, you agree he is also "scum"?
I have nothing but the greatest of respect for women...and have not said anything a sane person would consider dishonorable to them.
Yeah...I've bedded many...and they and I have mutual respect. I've not "taken advantage" of young women or women who consider a romp to be immoral...and your bullshit is just that.
Yes, I imagine for someone who has lived a humdrum life and gotten laid infrequently, that may seem to be "talking badly about women."
It is not...and the women with whom I've romped would laugh in your face for considering it to be so.
[quote=Trump]Nobody respects women more than me.[/quote]
I've been referring to the way you talk about women, nothing else. In that respect, you two are twins even in your excuses.
You are digging a hole for yourself, Baden...and I do not mind encouraging you to dig deeper.
If you need a sharper spade or shovel...just ask. I'll be happy to help you.
By the way...if you would stop digging for a moment and take a look at those two quotes...
...you will see a world of difference in what was being said.
Take another look.
It is not...and the women with whom I've romped would laugh in your face for considering it to be so.[/quote]
I dislike both Biden and Trump regardless of whether these latest allegations are true. And the reasons for my respective dislike are fairly distinct, so yes I can tell the difference. No argument there. My point to you is that if you are not consistent in terms of Biden lying about this (if he is) as opposed to Kavanaugh then you are not credible. That's a fair point isn't it?
As with Obama, personality trumps substance.
I don't think this is how we should do it. We shouldn't judge people on presentation because sloppy people can be awesome. Kindly old Irish people can turn out to be drunken bastards.
I think this is a call for you to back down on some of your viciousness, because you're going to vote for Biden not knowing whether he committed sexual assault or not. This is the reason the liberal media isn't covering this. It's hard them to come to terms with it.
Tell me about it. :lol:
Okay...start shoveling the other side.
:starstruck:
Yep.
If I'm inconsistent you can feel free to point it out, especially if you're willing to quote me. Meantime, take a chill pill. Nobody needs to have a coronary over this.
Doesn't really address the specific point I was making. You called Kavanaugh "scum" because he lied (in your view) about the assault, not for anything else in his character. This has nothing to do with Trump.
Quoting tim wood
I'm saying you need to apply the same to Biden if he's guilty.
Right now, I am wishing you could be a little inconsistent. You ARE being consistent...being a nudge; being a troll; being unnecessarily disagreeable...for no apparent reason. I agree with 90% of your advocacy, but you have gone apeshit because I have mentioned something about the Tara Reade story that is almost impossible to be true.
She was standing up fully dressed in a Senate hallway...yet she says he was able to shove his fingers up into her.
Try it sometime. Try it with the woman cooperating...and you will see how difficult it is to do. It takes time and maneuvering...and then more time and maneuvering. And most of the time you are not going to get it done...unless you've coated your fingers with Vaseline.
As for the "coronary" no problem on m part. I am bothered by the fact that you apparently are in a coma.
If we can...let's get back to being reasonable with each other.
A dodge and a diversion. I'm done.
lmao
I don't hold them solely responsible. It's true that in South Carolina, for example, he did very well with Black voters, the elderly, etc. More of Bernie's voters needed to show up in very high numbers as well, and they simply didn't.
On the other hand, the DNC was very clear about what they wanted from the beginning, doing all they could to stop Sanders -- including the rapid events of the other candidates dropping out and quickly rallying around Biden. Sanders also never had the media on his side. Now, of course, you hear nothing but how great of a guy he is -- but we all remember the hit pieces escalating every day as it was becoming clearer he could become the nominee and panic set in.
So it's not only the DNC, but mainly. Had they been behind him as much as this senile, weak, milquetoast establishment politician who they have ordained as the nominee and now have to prop up, Bernie would have easily won. Instead they joined the conservatives by attacking him for being "extreme," basically a communist, and more importantly stressed how there was "no chance" he would beat Trump (I had this debate on this forum, in fact -- needless to say that was not backed up with the polling data).
The rest is history. Now we're left with this shadow of a man. I'll be very interested in the VP pick (the most important VP pick in history, in my view), and what further concessions he makes to Sanders' voters.
Is it really Biden's charming personality? I think Trump is far more entertaining as "personality."
If it turns out he's guilty, and I hope he is, then maybe the DNC can prop up someone else. It'll never be Sanders, of course, but even Mayor Pete is a better candidate. If not, and Biden is somehow elected, but convicted while in office -- impeach him and remove him, let the VP take over.
No thinking person likes Joe Biden, in my view. I haven't met one person enthusiastic about his candidacy (although they must be out there?), regardless of the truth or falsity of these accusations.
But all of this truly misses the point. None of it matters as much as other issues. Let him be thrown out of office -- fine. He's essentially a figurehead anyway. What matters is removing the most dangerous president in American history, then the staffing of cabinet positions, department heads, appellate and Supreme Court judges, an administration responsive to activist pressure (as Chomsky points out), etc. etc.
And at this point in history, we can't gamble. But that does NOT mean condoning rape or loving Joe Biden or the DNC or even the Democratic party. Obviously many purists disagree and believe voting third party (or not voting) will send a message. But even if that's true (and I have yet to hear solid evidence supporting this), I don't think we have the time to wait. If I did, perhaps I'd agree with this strategy.
This election is just far too important for sticking to the less dangerous party when we have a sociopath in the White House. Think of a Supreme Court with a 6-3 or 7-2 conservative majority for at least a generation, or four years of propping up the fossil fuel industry while the effects of climate change are already occurring? It should terrify everyone.
We have to get our priorities straight. Survival has to come first -- then we deal with everything else, like corruption, privacy invasion, Biden's sexual history, corporations buying elections, and so on. All very important, but not existential.
That's as rational as I can state my position.
I'm not sure why. Apathy? Jaded? Or not quite agitated enough?
Quoting Xtrix
I mainly watch PBS and read the NYT. I only glance at CNN and MSNBC. I become tired very quickly of their strong emotional bias. They aren't there to inform so much as to cash in on anxiety. I don't think they manufactured anxiety about Sanders' chances, but I agree that they peddled it.
Quoting Xtrix
He's definitely not a firebrand, that's for sure. Chomsky said a Sanders victory wouldn't do anything without a continuing grassroots movement. Can that proceed without Sanders in office? I wonder if anyone has asked him to talk about that. You're up there, why don't you email him and tell us what he says?
Who knows. Some say the younger voters just don't show up in the numbers that older voters do.
Quoting frank
I don't think it was manufactured either. There's a filtering process that happens in media -- those who write the op-eds have internalized a set of core beliefs, and are thus quite sincere in their anxieties.
Quoting frank
True, not at least with congress and many state legislatures. Even then it means nothing with a clear activist agenda.
Quoting frank
Up where? And e-mail who? Chomsky? There's no need -- just think about it: the movement continued after he lost in 2016, and it will likely continue now even more so. So we have the answer: of course it proceeds without him.
Will it continue without him as a focal point?
There's good evidence to suggest that, yes. The Sunrise Movement isn't based on Sanders as a leader. Nor was the Occupy Movement (in fact he was riding that wave in many ways). The policies of $15 minimum wage, universal healthcare, Green new deal, etc., aren't exclusively Bernie's anymore, and that's a good thing.
So in many ways we've seen that these movements and policies have developed a life of their own.
Edit: in the long run obviously. In the short run it's shooting yourself in the foot.
I have a theory that you can drop your prized line about how euro-rightists are to the left of American leftists. That's not true.
Ideologically, we're pretty similar. In the concrete, Europe is further left because they havent been paying for their own defense. That makes funds available for social welfare.
Biden will advocate continuing to defend Europe. Trump would not. So sure, support Trump.
I may be wrong.
This is very mixed up.
Quoting frank
You're not even wrong.
1) The American "left", if you mean the Dems, are about where the British conservative party are except on healthcare where they are to the right of the Tories.
2) Europe is not further left of the US just because some of it is in NATO. There are important cultural issues there.
3) I don't support Trump.
4) Europe ought to organize its own defence and move away from the US.
I think you're overlooking circumstances. You may just not know how prevalent American Communists were before the 1950s.
Quoting Baden
I think that would result in an upheaval and probably wouldnt be undertaken unless they were actually under attack (at which point they would be doomed).
I'm just pondering.
Your culture (and politics) has changed.
Quoting frank
Hardly. We have a strong nuclear deterrent and the ability to defend ourselves against pretty much anyone except the US. But then, I don't see that war happening unless things really get wild with Trump.
Sounds more like an attempt at one-upmanship based on your country's superior firepower.
That would be a more narrow meaning of "culture" than I was thinking of.
Quoting Baden
I dont think Europe is prepared to defend itself from Russia and certainly not China.
The point is that Europe expects to be led militarily by the US. The EU administration therefore has no stake in reinforcing unity. They allowed antagonism to infect the relationship between members and the administration because they had no reason not to.
If the EU administration had defense as a high priority things would be different politically and economically throughout Europe. It would be a totally different place. And so would the US.
Answering this would require a dive into psychology that wouldn't be anywhere near as interesting as the bizarre mural I'm painting due to extended vacation because my hospital is close to vacant.
Fortunately I'm always overflowing with PTO. Some of the RNs I work with are being furloughed one week of every month. That means no PTO usage.
There's more chance of Martians invading Europe than China. It'd be like Amazon bombing the post office.
I didnt say that Europe needs to defend itself from China.
I said it's been shaped politically and economically by the lack of any need to worry about defense.
And this might influence the way a European thinks about the difference between Biden and Trump.
Biden will continue efforts to undermine Russia's expansion. Trump won't. Biden will embrace relationships with Asian countries and reaffirm goodwill toward Europe. Trump won't.
Stuff like that.
Then it doesn't need to prepare to defend itself from China as per:
Quoting frank
Re:
Quoting frank
OK.
That was in response to your bizarre statement that Europe can defend itself from everyone but the US.
We've grown so used to war over the centuries...it is almost a way of life.But what the hell would we want to fight wars for now?
Would anyone want to OCCUPY France...or England...or anyplace?
Can you imagine OCCUPYING China, Russia, India, the US...at this point?
Kings used to fight wars for territory. There is no need for that now.
The idea that the US has to spend as much as it does on military might...is fucking nuts.
We spend almost $800,000,000 per year on military.
We should be institutionalized for doing so.
It's a fair point, and if this were any other election (besides 2016) I might agree it would be worthwhile just to rile the population even more. This is, after all, a time of more political organizing and activism than possibly even the 1960s, starting with the Women's March (largest protest in world history).
But we have to consider the larger context. For me, climate change is the most important issue -- because it's existential. Trump's policies on that are a well-known disaster and will continue for another four years, which we simply cannot afford. (Nuclear weapons are important too, as Chomsky has pointed out, but I know less about that other than Trump is accelerating our destruction there as well.)
If those things aren't scary enough, look at the Supreme Court and the appellate courts. McConnell has already appointed nearly 200 judges, and Trump has had two SCOTUS picks. Trump will almost certainly get another appointment if re-elected, shifting to a 6-3 conservative majority -- and possibly 2 (as Breyer is 81 years old). That will do untold long-term harm as well, leaving out even environmental policies mentioned above.
So as much as I'd love it, as someone who campaigned for Sanders, I'm forced to put reason over emotion in this case.
I think there will be global conflicts in the 22nd century over resources.
Quoting Frank Apisa
Inertia and terrorists.
Yes I am, Tim. Good catch.
I originally wrote $800 billion (with a "b")...and then thought it would be more dramatic with the zero's.
Screwed it up. So...
We spend almost $800,000,000,000 per year on the military.
Only an opinion, but we do seem to be spending a lot.
The thing that I take into consideration is that every cent the government spends...someone else EARNS. Mostly, I suspect, the top 1% gets the cream...but a portion goes to those in the 99% below them. Every penny of military spending is EARNED (or obtained) by someone else in the economy.
My feeling is that the government should be the employer of last resort. There should NEVER be any unemployment, because the government (local, county, state, national) should be required to hire anyone who cannot get a job elsewhere in the economy. (There's a lot more to that thought, but best not to get into that here and now.) In other words, spend even more.
Reagan was a Neoliberal. His influence was a direct result of Neoconservatism, so there's some overlap between the two, and in the US there's a strong connection between Neoliberalism and hawkishness, which it inherits from its Neoconservative base.
I think that military spending during peacetime is a way a Neoliberal government can force the economy forward when Savings & Loan institutions or the banking system itself becomes overtly unstable (which they did occasionally since the late 80s). I think One-nation conservatism can do the same thing through social programs.
There's confluence but not concordance. Bill Clinton was a neoliberal too, but not a neocon (Hillary, on the other hand, hmm.)
Quoting frank
Well, as you no doubt saw from the Blyth vid, the neoliberal project is to divorce the material benefits of growth from the vast majority of the population and concentrate them in a tiny minority. So, the question becomes not 'How do we get growth?'—neoliberalism can deliver on that in multiple ways and we all get cheap technology (yay!) while not being able to afford houses and having fuck-all savings and huge debt (boo!). No, the question is 'How do we maintain an equitable enough sharing of the benefits of growth to maintain social cohesion'? Because otherwise 'Democracy' which is essentially a bunch of laws to protect the rich from us killing them and taking all their shit starts to look like a bad deal to the plebs propping up its dying corpse.
Right. Neoliberalism is something in the background of political parties. It was an answer to the malaise of 1970s stagflation. Clinton started out as a leftist and morphed toward the center because it was the only way to get elected. Even then, he was only elected president because a third party emerged that split the Republican vote.
Quoting Baden
Calling it the neoliberal project makes it sound like it was consciously conducted by scam artists, as if someone actually wanted to concentrate wealth. For Americans, deregulation performed by a guy in a cowboy hat was in line with the American identity. Alan Greenspan was a fan of Ayn Rand's. Like it or hate it, there is an ideological aspect to American neoliberalism, and it's essentially neoconservatism.
Quoting Baden
When a string of savings & loans collapses due to poor lending practices, I think an infusion of cash into the economy would be helpful in reversing a collapse in confidence. Is that wrong? My theory is that military spending in the US helped hide instability in the banking system over a period of several decades.
Quoting Baden
Boring is a virtue in a president.
Yeah, they did. On Blyth's analysis, Keynesian in that form was unsustainable anyway, but there were conscious efforts by monied interests to concentrate wealth, none of which are particularly secret.
It's laid out pretty clearly in, for example:
https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/183033.A_Brief_History_of_Neoliberalism
Quoting frank
:point:
Quoting frank
Quoting frank
Neoconservatism directs itself primarily towards social conservatism and hawkish foreign policy. Neoliberalism is concerned with economics. The concepts face in different directions. Analytically, what's the return on conjoining them? (Socially liberal politicians in America are also almost exclusively neoliberal. If neoliberalism was ideologically neoconservative, they wouldn't be. Again, contextual confluence not ideological concordance.)
Quoting frank
The story of why things failed is more complicated than that as is the best solution. Though the US got it more right than the UK.
See, e.g:
(A fairly compelling story, though his predictions re Ireland didn't pan out. We are the poster boys for austerity and the only country where it seemed to "work".)
Quoting frank
Tell me more.
Cool, I'll read it.
Quoting Baden
The anti-labor aspect of neoliberalism fits the anti-leftist ideology of neoconservatism. Neocons just wouldn't accept any economic system that directs power to the people. An American liberal strikes an odd pose in an neoliberal setting and will show up as distinctly centrist. I think you're right that it's just a matter of circumstances that it works out that way in the US.
Quoting Baden
The American savings & loan crisis was in the 80s and 90s. Under B. Clinton the banking system also appeared unstable for a while. It was an early sign that poor lending practices were becoming normal.
Quoting Baden
Solution to what? I haven't watched the second video yet.
Quoting Baden
Interestingly, the Irish don't work much. Practically the whole country except for pubs closes at 5 pm. It's bizarre.
Quoting Baden
I'm still rolling it around, it may be bullshit.
We're too drunk to find shops after 5.
All that neoliberal/neoconservative/liberal/libertarian/conservative labeling nonsese ought to be outlawed in conversations of this sort. It reminds me of the discussions about atheism/agnosticism/theism that devolve into arguments over what the words mean.
That is where we are in the Neoeverything issue.
Joe Biden was not my favorite for the nomination to oppose Trump...but I would vote for Biden in a heartbeat over Trump. And I would do so with lots of enthusiasm.
The mainstays of MSNBC, CNN, AND FOX will have to find some other way to make a buck when Trump goes...but covering him is like covering the coronavisus pandemic.
And this is from December. Another thing to keep in mind while we consider a possible "protest vote."
I am not a Democrat...so I have no reason for that to be my position.
I would choose Biden in a heartbeat, because Trump is the most ignorant, stupid, classless boor ever to pollute the presidency...and for the sake of our nation (and the world in general)...I want to see him become the most ignorant, stupid, classless ex-president we've ever had as soon as possible.
I'll go one step further - I'll vote for Biden over Trump even if Biden were to shoot someone on 5th Avenue.
The difference between me and the Trump supporters is that I would not glorify Biden and ignore his flaws.
Shouldn't you also trust the devil you know at this point?
I seem to remember that's also a solid principle when it comes to evil dealings.
Pathetic.
Not sure if you are kidding here, Boethius...but if you are, it was a terrible jest.
Anyway, in case you weren't...NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO, NO...you shouldn't.
Quoting StreetlightX
I agree. It is pathetic that I have to make this choice. A second Trump term will be a catastrophe for the US & the world. I would vote for a trained seal over Trump - provided that the trainer was a Democrat. I wish the dems could find a better candidate than Biden.
If Biden were to shoot someone on 5th Avenue I would loudly call for him to withdraw from the race. But if he is the candidate, I have no choice but to vote for him.
She has no bias due to her being a Democrat and lifelong Biden supporter, but those factors also point to her having no brain. I'll call those a wash, acquit Biden, and vote for Trump, which was where I was going to end up anyway.
Well Frank seems to disagree with you, but in this case I already know both the devils very well :smile:
Not as if the US is a democracy in any meaningful sense anyway.
But Hanny said it's happy days over there?? :death:
A coworker thinks it's going to spew when we come off lockdown. I don't know. It's the weirdest disease. People come in with seizures, blood clots everywhere, very high fevers, digestive problems. And then some people have no symptoms. Maybe it's mutating.
Yeah, getting harder not easier to understand. I heard a doctor on YT the other day say it's not like pneumonia where the lungs tire out but more like a lack of oxygen at high altitudes. The point being that ventilators don't help much because the lungs have lost the capacity to absorb oxygen and manually pumping them doesn't solve that problem.
But according to Dianne Feinstein, who was instrumental in going after Kavanaugh, Reade is a liar, because, I don't know, it's a Dem this time. Stacy I'll-say-anything-to-get-that-VP-slot Abrams recently jumped on that train of shame too. :vomit:
Dude, it's such a fucking trainwrek, I want to start meth or something.
You can safely relegate that to the bottom of your solution list, Shawn.
Baden, is this really happening? What's this going to be:
90% Trump-0, 5% Biden?
Either of them could eat a live baby and it'd still only be a fight over a few percentage points. Such are the wonders of a two party system and the self-fulfilling attitude of having no choice.
Let's elect Coronavirus, please. It's doing pretty well on the forum, and we have it going for something like 4-5 months.
:lol: Anyhow, pencil in 'insane clown shit show' for November.
I wanna see Biden have a mental breakdown on stage.
Papa, son, mommy!
And eat a live baby?
Posters on here be like:
Yeah, I know Biden just ate that baby on live TV, but you know, the supreme court!
The ventilator helps with oxygenation because we can hold the lungs open and provide high concentrations of O2.
It's not that we're failing completely to oxygenate and they die from that, it's systemic damage. They just get too far gone.
I dont think anybody is idolizing Biden.
Or smoke crack.
I'll try to dig up the video. Maybe you can comment more on it then.
So you think the best way to find a candidate with personal integrity is to just have more parties to increase the odds one won't be a piece of shit in his personal life?
It seems like better vetting is in order more than anything else. It's not like I'm going to vote for the Bill Moose party or some such shit just because their candidate is an eagle scout.
Funny, in every other area of life, Americans scream about the virtues of choice. You need 700 flavours of ice cream, but you can't see the point in more than two political parties. Imagine you had only two flavours of ice-cream, shit flavoured and puke flavoured. There's your political system right there, even leaving aside the fucked personalities of your current candidates for the presidency.
:ok:
I wonder how many we can get through on this forum alone before November. Shouldn't be too hard. Should be able to cross a few off already. Definitely 'Do you want Trump?' is done.
Well...it seems that the people who helped insure Trump's election in 2016...are at work seeing to it that he will be re-elected.
What a bunch of chumps.
It's you and the Dem machine who want Trump to win. Why else would you be getting behind a senile accused rapist? You realize without suburban women, you have zero hope of winning, right? You realize vast swathes of them are not going to vote for someone they think is a rapist? And you realize you can't make them forget about Tara Reade by calling them Nazis? What you need to do is make Biden stand down. If you don't do that, I conclude you want Trump to win.
Conclude what you want.
Last election I supported and voted for Hillary Clinton...and attempted, as much as possible, to persuade the people who spoke against her (but who obviously realized the danger of a Trump presidency) to stop speaking against her and to rally to her cause, because doing what they were doing was aiding Trump in his election bid.
This time, I realize the jerk-offs who are doing the same thing to Joe Biden...ARE jerk-offs...and not worth the effort to entreat them to pull their heads out of their asses.
Trump will be remembered in history as the most disgusting, destructive thing that ever happened to our Republic. His supporters will be regarded as slightly below him on the ladder of loyalty to nation and and sanity.
And below them...will be the people who are doing what you are doing, Baden. That bottom group will be regarded as the true sludge.
I understand the approach of supporting the ideology but not the person. You can logically be a good person and vote for a bad person. It really comes down to what degree you expect your leaders to be good people versus wanting them to support your views.
I don't follow your position tough. You blast Trump for being a disgusting person and provide that as reason not to support him, but you give Biden a pass for the same behavior.
Logic would require some consistency here. Either be a pragmatist and vote for a bad person whose politics you agree with (and so withhold your criticisms when your Trump opponents do the same), or condemn anyone who votes for a morally bad person.
I've expressed some reservation in convicting Biden myself, despite mounting evidence because I do think as a society we're too quick to judge. However I do wish to distance myself from any suggestion that the accusation against Biden couldn't possibly have occurred because digital penetration is impossible without arousal and consent. That argument indicates an irrational advocate unwilling to accept any damaging evidence.
I take your position really to be to do whatever is necessary to get Biden elected, regardless of what double standards, logical contradictions, or ad homs you have to engage in. Fair enough, but I don't think that position holds much weight in a philosophy forum and it's very doubtful that's a winning marketing strategy either.
I most assuredly do NOT give Biden a pass on any behavior, Hanover.
I suggest, as strongly as possible, that he is a MUCH better choice when the choice becomes Biden or Trump...as it seems to be settling.
If Biden is guilty of assaulting Reade, I condemn it in the strongest terms, but I still would choose him over Trump.
ASIDE: For reasons I have outlined elsewhere, I suspect the thrust of Reade's accusations are false. Something almost certainly did happen...but not nearly the kind of thing she is alleging.
Logic would not require that at all...in any way.
In any case, what you term "morals" factors in very low on my list of qualities I want in a president. I want competency, intelligence, and a desire to put the country before self as much as possible...much higher.
I suspect SOMETHING happened...but not what Reade is alleging. As for disagreement with my position...I accept that you disagree. If it is necessary for you to think of me as "an irrational advocate unwilling to accept any damaging evidence"...I will have to live with that.
"Take" whatever you want regarding my "position" on this issue. I have stated my position clearly...and it does not match up with your characterization of it.
So if it turned out Biden was a paedophile, you'd still support him? (Or to make it more analogous, let's say he was credibly accused of paedophilia). What exactly would he have to do for you not to support him?
Oh God Biden's going to fucking die, and he'll take anyone who has cared about sexual assault and rape down with him. This is not a take-down of Biden - this is a take-down of anyone who ever asked that women's grievances be taken seriously. Biden's actually going to fucking ruin the credibility of an entire generation and cause for justice. Holy shit.
One...I said "morals" (or what others consider "morals')...were low on my list of qualifications...not absent from the list. I would, like any other sane person, hope for a "moral" president. But the term "morals" can be rather twisted. There are some (probably many, in the US) who would consider being "God fearing" to be moral...and being agnostic or atheistic to be immoral. I consider that to be nonsense.
Two...if a CREDIBLE accusation of pedophilia were made against Biden...I would be hugely disappointed. HUGELY! (I would also be hugely skeptical.)
But if it were a choice between an accused pedophile Joe Biden and Trump...
...I would choose Biden before Trump in an instant.
In my opinion, Trump MUST BE removed from office.
Chimps?
The ad is spot on. The Dems are horribly exposed here.
Quoting Frank Apisa
Seek help.
For what?
Some kind of virus goin' around.
Maybe a sensible Biden supporter can address this. How much are you willing to tear down for Biden? And why? Why can't you get away from the guy? The chances the Reade thing is going to be resolved in his favor are extremely low right now. Why not campaign to get him removed? Start now before it's too late.
From the NYT
"I’ll vote for Mr. Biden this fall.
I won’t say it will be easy. I have been writing on and agitating for women’s equality since “The Feminine Mystique” came out in 1963. I know how supposedly “liberal” men abused the sexual revolution in every imaginable way. I am unimpressed by their lip service to feminism, their Harvard degrees or their donations to feminist causes.
In 1998, I was one of a few establishment feminists to argue on behalf of Monica Lewinsky, when the unofficial representative of the movement, Gloria Steinem, threw her under the bus in the pages of The New York Times to protect Bill Clinton. I maintained my position until, two decades and a #MeToo movement later, Ms. Steinem issued a non-apology for the essay. So I hate, hate, hate to say the following.
Suck it up and make the utilitarian bargain.
All major Democratic Party figures have indicated they’re not budging on the presumptive nominee, and the transaction costs of replacing him would be suicidal. Barring some miracle, it’s going to be Mr. Biden."
She says dispense with the "gotcha" you chimps.
If all you've got is ad homs and a quote from one random feminist who supports Biden, you've got nothing. When you can formulate an argument of your own, feel free to do so.
You asked for a Biden supporter's viewpoint, I gave you one. It was more than a quote because I linked the NYT article it's from.
If you didnt understand her, I could try to help you, but I certainly don't need an argument to provide you with what you asked for.
I asked for a viewpoint from posters here. I can't exactly carry on a debate with her, can I? Or do you just want me to dig up quotes from those who don't support Biden as a riposte? And there's nothing to what she said as it stands. It was "I'm a feminist and I support Biden because > utilitarianism". That's it. Period. So, what does that add to the conversation, frank?
Thank you, Frank, and my thanks to Linda Hirshman.
How these geniuses think the transition to someone else would not be political suicide is beyond me.
In any case, Joe Biden has been a pragmatic, intelligent, reasonable guy for his entire career. I not only will vote for him...I will do so with pleasure and enthusiasm.
I think you're just sore that a feminist who will outrank your concerns about sexual assault forever advocates a utilitarian approach. I wish you'd read the NYT article in full. It's incredibly poignant.
It's time you realized you have no gotcha.
The idea that this is a "gotcha" is incredibly stupid and crass. A woman says she was raped here. And then you talk about the poignancy of a feminist on an article behind a paywall. You're a mess on this.
Edit: Cross-posted, but yes, bizarre and sick.
The "it's just a gotcha" thing is so absurd it didn't even make the bingo.
Did you see what Mark Blyth said about paywalls?
Biden is a gaff machine unto himself, and I'm not exactly a fan of his economic views and track record (he would rather cut medicare and medicaid than risk the ire of wealthy and corporate donors/lobbyists). He doesn't even seem to be DNC status quo; the dems get elected and try to balance the budget without dicking social programs, then a republican gets elected, hypocritically spends more than the dems (especially on military) while slashing taxes; rinse and repeat. Biden differs (is lesser) because he doesn't even seem to give a shit about not dicking the poor.
And what is with his old-school prejudice against weed?
This man is so out of touch that he simultaneously is trying to represent the will of a majority of Americans while also thinking it his moral duty to enforce his antiquated moral sentiments on the rest of us.
And the rape accusation...
"ALL WOMEN WHO SPEAK UP SHOULD BE LISTENED TO AND BELIEV-YGT^w$tg$%h$%.. ERROR- 404 123 TAKE BACKS!!!!"
Maybe it's a politically motivated false accusation; it should not end the campaign (it should be investigated asap due to the public's need for accurate information about their candidates IMO). But the fact that democratic loud and bleeding hearts are exceptionally silent on this is just loathsome. You can't kick up an ultimate fuss about rape-culture and then not look stupid when you do a full speed 180 the moment it's no longer convenient...
Long story short, Biden is at this point as difficult a sell as Hillary Clinton was, but probably worse. Trump will probably have less support this go-round, I'm just afraid it won't be enough to counteract the hoards of disenfranchised and dissatisfied potential democrats, who once more, will vote third party, or Trump, out of raw desire to spite the DNC and its self-serving system.
That's actually just me trying to understand your stance on this. Otherwise I'm just laughing at your naivete.
My position is that the Dems should make a calculation based on whether the accusation is likely true or not and act on that. Because if it is, it's not going away and it's getting more credible by the day. So, yes, an accusation alone should not necessarily end a campaign, but time is running out and the Democrats are faced with a huge risk running him or a quick bloodletting by putting someone else in there (Of course, there was a huge risk anyway considering his mental state, so it could be seen as a bonus 'out' for them.)
So, the worst-case scenario in running him is a big loss and down-ballot carnage as the GOP saturate the airwaves with ads like the one street posted and the allegation gets more legs. Not only do they lose the election but they also lose any moral high ground they had over the GOP with women, and suburban moms stay at home disgusted at both parties. The worst-case scenario in running someone else is they also lose but still retain some moral integrity, which is likely to work better for them down-ballot.
I'm open to some detail on why it's impossible for the Dems to rid themselves of him, but as things stand, I'm not convinced. Apply enough pressure from the right people, including privately, and maybe he'd stand down voluntarily. Call it health reasons. Whatever. But unless he's cleared and they stick with the loathsome backflip strategy, they will fully deserve their loss in November.
Quoting VagabondSpectre
:mask:
:ok:
We all feel like Trump really needs to be defeated in November, but there is actually a cost for throwing principles to the wind. As @Baden points out:
Quoting Baden
Just to add to that, nationally, Biden is currently losing with men and ahead with women by 20 points. If he doesn't maintain a significant lead with women going into the election, he's a goner. The GOP are licking their lips at this.
I don't think you have a choice. Arent you Canadian?
This was supposed to be the candidate with the most 'electability'.
Don't bother with these morally upstanding people helping to re-elect Trump. In their minds, if you vote Biden you're just as bad as Trump voters. It's really that black and white. Forget an investigation, and never mind that you're not a democrat, not a Biden fan at all, would be glad to see an investigation and him dropping out of the race -- forget even how dangerous another 4 years of Trump is, etc. etc. -- that's too nuanced to consider.
The only logical solution? Don't vote or vote third party. Because both are "rapists." Also, ignore the fact that this strategy will also elect an alleged rapist -- one who's administration denies climate science (and any science they don't like) while in the midst of an environmental crisis and pandemic. Doesn't matter. Got to teach the DNC a lesson.
Notice too that the position has shifted. Now it's all about "rape." Why? Because it's far easier to take a righteous stand on that -- ergo, it happened; they're certain of it (because they have to be): Biden is a rapist. Now that this has been established as an axiom, they can go on chastising those even considering voting for him.
Pathetic.
They don't care. It's psychopathy at this point in the DNC.
Get off your nonsense.
Oh, so you're in favor of rape. Got it.
See how easy it is? This level of argument in a philosophy forum is truly pathetic.
No, I don't think it is psychopathology. I loathe Trump; I dislike Biden. BUT, by and large, both parties and both candidates are rational servants of the class to whom they are indebted. Neither Trump or Biden is going to piss off the capitalist elite by doing anything rashly destructive to their interests.
Third party? I wish there was a third party of strength and substance. It would have to be very large and very effective indeed to push out both the democrats and republicans, and we don't have a parliamentary system, so winning some seats doesn't help much.
Not only are we stuck in a possibly long lasting pandemic, we're stuck in a global climate crisis and we have the misfortune of being born into mature and hegemonic, maybe late stage capitalism. Being late stage capitalism doesn't mean they'll be going anywhere soon. We are stuck, we are fucked. Short of the revolution or Econo-eco-politico-socio-religio-etcio collapse, nothings going to change
And what are you doing to lift the level? Not much. Get it.
Strawman. I've made it clear Biden is an:
Quoting Baden
with the accusation being credible and gaining credibility recently. Which is exactly the situation. The rest of your post doesn't rise above a cartoon version of what your opposition is saying. I've never, for example, said everyone who will end up voting for Biden supports rape or is an apologist for rape. If you want to challenge any of that, you better quote me or consider yourself corrected.
Quoting Frank Apisa
Any comment on that hypothetical? Do you see anything potentially wrong with making a credibly accused pedophile, President? The point here is to highlight the fact that at some point, the character of the person elected must matter.
[list]
1. RAPE, SEXUAL ASSAULT, AND HARASSMENT ARE BAD, ILLEGAL, AND WRONG. THOSE COMMITTING THEM SHOULD BE PUNISHED. (Just want to be crystal clear about that).
2. Damn... 1993 was a looooong time ago. @Shawn , were you even born then? Lol.
3. If I’m getting the story (or whatever) straight, Ms Reade at the time (in 1993) filed a complaint about inappropriate shoulder touching, unwanted closeness, and the like. (No surprise here, Joe has been on video countless times doing similar creepy things to numerous women, unfortunately.). This would definitely qualify as harassment. BUT... no PUBLIC mention of any rape or sexual assault by Ms Reade until a couple months ago. Why?
4. In the USA, a person is considered innocent until proven guilty. These are serious accusations, of course. Accusations that would warrant a prison sentence if true. There should be a serious inquiry or trial. Public testimony under oath.
5. Fortunately or not, there are only two people who saw what transpired that day in question. And one them doesn’t have the memory capacity he used to.
6. Let’s suppose that Biden is forced to step down from the nomination because of his actions. Should Trump be likewise be forced to not run for a second term, because of his multiple sexual assault accusations (which he has gleefully admitted to)?
7. Like many here, I have wanted Bernie Sanders all along. But I get the impression that the DNC would rather have a wounded and tarnished Biden over a man who is willing to upend the medical, insurance, and pharmaceutical industries. Sanders is not a puppet on a string, much to their dismay.
8. I’m definitely NOT voting for Trump. He is indirectly responsible for the deaths of thousands of US citizens, imho. (On top of his other bad characteristics and actions). Who I vote for, or if I even vote at all, remains to be seen. The system is broken, and it is depressing and nauseating. I am not sure if those living in countries other than the USA really can completely feel that. Though I appreciate any objective and thoughtful critique.
Her story abruptly changed recently.
"Two women told Business Insider that Tara Reade, a former Senate staffer who has accused Joe Biden of sexual assault, mentioned the alleged incident to them in the mid-1990s, around the time she says it occurred. Lynda LaCasse, who once lived next to Reade, and Lorraine Sanchez, who worked with Reade in the California legislature, both say that Reade told them she had been fired from a job for reporting sexual harassment. Though Sanchez didn’t recall Reade telling her that Biden was the perpetrator, or that the misconduct in question was a sexual assault, the story LaCasse heard lines up closely with the one Reade has taken to the press.
“I remember her saying, here was this person that she was working for and she idolized him,” LaCasse told Business Insider. “And he kind of put her up against a wall. And he put his hand up her skirt and he put his fingers inside her. She felt like she was assaulted, and she really didn’t feel there was anything she could do.” Reade was in tears as she told the story, LaCasse added."
Exact same story that she told her friends at the time.
https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2020/04/theres-new-corroborative-evidence-for-tara-reades-story.html
But I'm going with "he did it" so...
Maybe she was intimidated by those out there who would try to tear her down, or by Biden and the DNC themselves, and the implications for her ever having a career, but in the end the thought of the guy who sexually assaulted her (if he did) becoming President became too much to bear. That's perfectly plausible.
Quoting 0 thru 9
Yes, exactly. As there was with Kavanaugh. Same thing. Try to get to the bottom of it. Either that or he stands down.
Quoting 0 thru 9
Ideally, yes.
Quoting 0 thru 9
Plutocracies are not nice places to live in if you care about politics at all. Or are not stinking rich.
Yep. Well said. About a year ago, I thought Trump had the advantage. Then a few months ago, Bernie looked like he could win it. Then Biden took the nomination, and Trump bungled the virus response. So Joe was looking like the favorite. The 2020 presidential election is a greased pig. (fishfry calling for HRC to run in 5,4,3,2,1... :blush: )
Quoting VagabondSpectre
Darn... thought this was a link to a NY Post story with lots of photos, lol.
Can you ease my pain?
:up: Definitely! Agreed. So how about this... Bernie Sanders/Bitter Crank 2020 independent ticket. And don’t say you’re too busy! (Unless you work in a hospital, grocery store, or as an Internet forum moderator, lol).
This seems obvious to me but it's just not sinking in.
We can.
Very possibly true. If a mugger will shoot someone to steal a mere cellphone, and of course politicians have had people eliminated for getting in the way of their plans. She has a lot to lose. But, to play devil’s advocate, there is possibly a tremendous amount for her TO GAIN right now. Money, fame, book deals. Slush money from the RNC, and hush money from the DNC??? Speculation... sure. But just as possible. I don’t know what to believe. Somebody is viciously lying. Not a good situation, but probably politics as usual.
But thanks for your response and for other comments, which I agree with. :up:
If it's true, I don't begrudge her any benefits she may get from it. If it's not, then considering she told the same story thirty years ago to several friends, this would be one hell of a long-term Machiavellian plot. I suppose I just have no problem believing Biden is the kind of scumbag who would do what she said he did, especially if you go back and look at video of him at that time (now he just appears pathetic), whereas I do have a problem believing she made this up thirty years ago in order that she might eventually get something out of it now. So, unless it's demonstrated that she's seriously mentally ill, I'm going with the obvious conclusion (and I think the case here is even stronger than the Blasey Ford one given the corroborating evidence).
Edit: Just to add, I hated Lindsey Graham's outburst at the Kavanaugh hearings, but now I realize he was right, Dems don't give a fuck about women. It was pure politics.
Yep, Biden can seem rather self-serving. Don’t know if he took lessons from “Slick Willie” Clinton or not. :cool:
And what an insightful point it is.
Where do we rank Trump's character? Rape and pedophilia aside, what we do know for certain is this: "Climate change is a Chinese hoax."
So we're left with a choice. Two accused rapists (one with over 10 women corroborating), both beholden to the corporate sector. We don't know for certain about the former, but we do know from the least 4 years about where Trump wants to take the country: right off the cliff.
A vote for Biden is not a vote in favor of the DNC or his character, it's a vote against Trump. Let Biden be thrown out of office - he's an empty candidate anyway. What matters is getting rid of the tumor and having an administration that can be pressured into sensible actions. That may seem like nothing, but it's literally everything. It's an entire cabinet, Supreme Court justices, circuit judges, Department heads, etc etc.
Or we can take the easy road and discuss the "character" of someone who's a figurehead anyway. I prefer looking at what can be done in terms of policies, particularly regarding the existential threat we're facing.
Call me crazy.
I don't recall referring to you once.
Either opiates or ibuprofen, depending on how bad your pain is.
I see the immediate issue and I understand your position, but the existential threat in my view is the two-party system itself not one or other party. That's where we differ.
At some point it just becomes a list and it's hard to convey just how much concrete suffering and grief Biden has been personally responsible for.
But also yes a probable rapist.
:lol: The whole enchilada? Nice! Because the latest polls have you 9 points above Biden. Good news: you can campaign from your basement. Bad news: if you win, you have to move to a new house. And the previous owner really smelled up the place bad!
It's like with Obama, he superficially seems like a nice guy and the presumption is that that can't easily be faked. That's a cognitive speed bump that shouldn't be difficult to get past, but somehow it's persistent.
From last time around: "Half his supporters are deplorables . . ."
That worked well.
Jesus H. Christ, Baden.
IF the choice is between Trump and Joe Biden...
...IF...
...(and that seems to be the choice that we will face here)...
...and "the character of the person" MUST MATTER...
...how is the hell can you find fault with me saying that I would choose Biden over
Trump in an instant.
In your hypothetical, one would be an ACCUSED (!) pedophile against whom almost no other credible charges have ever been made...and the other is a self-acknowledged shit pile of immorality against whom hundreds of charges...ranging from cheating people out of money to whoring...have been made? In addition, Trump is a crook, a whore-monger, and an ignorant, stupid, classless boor.
What is motivating you to argue what you seem to be arguing?
You see the immediate issue, yet still feel it's the two-party system that's the existential threat. Well that's a nice position to have, because that way we don't have to think very hard and it sounds so very outside the mainstream, but the fact remains: climate change is the existential threat. Is the two party system a problem? Certainly - a big problem. So's the electoral college, etc. If I had a magic wand, I'd change all that.
That's easy to say, but in reality we're very far from it. What we can do is consider our short term options - the only way to achieve any larger goal. As it is, we're given an unfortunate choice between an administration that has and will take us backwards, and one who will at the very least be open to activist pressure. That may be a small difference, but given we're the most powerful country in history, it matters all the same.
Voting third party or not voting at all under the guise of "Republicans and democrats are all the same" or "the two party system is corrupt" is obsolete.
A Trump and Biden administration are very different things, even conceding that they're both two factions of the corporate party. In these times, even the small differences matter.
More importantly, his environmental policies are systematically destroying the chances for organized human life in the future, at a time when scientists are telling us we don't have time to waste.
That's far more dangerous than telling people to drink bleach or yelling at reporters.
No need engaging in conversation that's irrelevant. I don't care about personality or about the person's history, since their mostly figureheads. Let them be tried and convicted. I care - as we all should - in what the policies are and how far we can push them in the correct direction (in this case, listening to climate science).
Engaging in speculation about character is superficial and easy. It matters to those who can't think their way out of a plastic bag - don't play that game.
Good advice. I thank you for it.
But tough to follow.
Baden was essentially faulting me on the issue of not paying enough attention to the fact that "the character of the person elected must matter."
IN A DISCUSSION REGARDING JOE BIDEN VERSUS TRUMP!
Incredible to me. But I will attempt to heed your advice. Depends in part on the kind of new comments that come forth.
There's some sadistic pleasure that comes with stomping on people's rainbows, though. That's probably just advancing a chain of abuse.
But notice that 100% of those who advocate rejecting Biden don't actually have a dog in the race. It's hard for me to get my head around that. I think the USA as a symbol must be more important than I tend to think. That's bound to be stressful.
I imagine what's stressful is not knowing the absolute fundamentals of politics and economics, such as what neoliberalism is, while at the same time trying to play the role of teacher to posters who are far more knowledgeable than you on just about everything. No amount of name-calling is going to make up for your deficiencies, frank.
:yawn:
Oh good, you took some meds.
Ok, at least you've articulated a position that isn't just a bunch of ad homs. I'll get back to you more on it later, especially seeing as the point about character is complicated. The focus on Trump's boorish character, for example, is usually just a distraction, but the lack of consistency with Biden and the specific charge is a problem. Anyway, one thing I'll challenge you on now is the idea that Trump is an existential threat re climate change. He has four more years. What is the extent of the damage you think he'll do in that time as opposed to Biden being in charge? Give me some specifics.
Baden...how can you say that Trump's boorish character is "usually just a distraction"...
...when you specifically said, "The point here is to highlight the fact that at some point, the character of the person elected must matter."
Are you suggesting that "the character of the person" matters...unless it entails the character defect of "boorishness?" Do you not see that "boorishness" in the leader of a nation like America is essentially disqualifying? How does one thread the needle of diplomacy with other nations (and with other domestic political sensibilities) with the limitless supply of boorishness Trump brings to the table?
Democrat supporters are saying the same shit they were lambasting just months ago in the Kavanaugh trial (edit: promotion interview), revealing it absolutely is just a partisan issue to them as the Republicans accused them of. A major credibility issue for sincere American liberals who get hit in the feels by credible sexual assault allegations regarding the president they're supposed to like.
We are in the best of all possible worlds, the democratic party absolutely will minimise this showing their outright hypocrisy and opportunism, and the republican party can laugh at the sidelines whereas before, to them, it was about "due process" and the role of court (don't politicise a tragedy, as you lot like to say).
They deserve each other.
Yep.
Quoting fdrake
No, Republicans know Democrats are just like themselves when it comes to ruthlessness. It's people who want to understand the world as a real-life anime with superheroes and ultra-villains who think something world-stopping just happened.
But consider: Trump has the constitutional means to call off the up-coming election and remain in office. Maybe Biden will take that opportunity to drop out and let someone else run. And maybe it will be someone just astonishingly upright like Barack Obama. You never know.
He does?
How so?
America's politics is set from the ground up to be a gigantic spectacle. Everyone who reads the news can't help but become intimately familiar with American politics. Everyone who consumes media can't help but become familiar with American culture. Our news cycles are dominated by your politician-come-reality-TV-stars, and it should go without saying that the USA's stance on the matter, whatever the matter is, sets the tone for things internationally.
Your culture is generalised and exported as entirely universal, your politics dominates headlines and policy the world over, and you're somehow bamboozled that the rest of the world has a tendency to react to it. We get pissed off with how full of shit your politics is when it spreads around filling the airwaves with endless crap, gets into the minds of our politicians by being born from the same, uliginous, anus or ends up making some Palestinian kid afraid of the sky.
Oh, it's not constitutional. If he called off the election, red states would probably comply. Blue states cant do it on their own.
I mean, I'm British. We're the trope codifiers for modern imperialism/neocolonialism. It isn't a coincidence that we can both go to a foreign country and expect them to speak our language, right? Isn't it strange that the world treats English as the dominant language.
Some reading (neutral source, philosophy encyclopedia article on neocolonialism)
For America? Not that my opinion matters.
Redistributive measures (suggest huge progressive income tax and treating all assets gained and held as taxable and highly taxed, bring back FDR).
Mandatory union membership as part of a worker's contract.
Huge investment in tax officers.
Updated laws on data and fiscal transparency.
Updated laws on tax avoidance and company formation (fuck shell companies).
Weaken corporate restricted liability.
Tiny donation caps for political parties from private interests.
Make all party funding a matter of public record, I want the bank statements and a public registry of names and accounts and transactions.
As thorough conflict of interest background checks on politicians as you have for social workers.
Well funded and staffed public institutions to enforce all that crap.
And if anyone says "capital flight", take some cues from China.
I can dream. If any of that stuff actually became a political option it would be shot down from the get go.
A politician who can be demonstrated to be acting against the public interest should be charged with treason.
I'll sleep well tonight.
Having a contractually obliged political organisation of heterogeneous but align-able interests that spans every aspect of the private sector is extremely attractive. An already organised series of levers for grassroots activists.
No, it isn't that complicated. I don't think you and I really "disagree," either. You know as well as I do that both political parties in the United States are beholden to "special interests" (i.e., corporate interests), and that we're living in an era of a savage version of capitalism that started roughly 40 years ago (neoliberalism). We also agree, I think, that at this point in history we are facing an imminent existential crisis, comparable only to nuclear war in its potential for destroying human life.
None of these points require great intellectual capability. They're factual claims, and really transcend any political ideology. All you have to do is look around at how things work, and maybe listen to a few scientists -- in the same way we do with everything that hasn't been politicized and manufactured to be "controversial."
All right, so in the end we're left with an admittedly poor choice, once again, between two old white men with questionable (to say the very least) character, claims of sexual assault, possible cognitive decline, etc.
Given the above situation, particularly regarding our facing extinction, what political party do we want appointing department heads (say the EPA), judges, Supreme Court justices? Who would be preferable?
We can claim that there is no difference at all, that both are equally or roughly as bad, albeit in different ways. I simply don't agree with that. The Republican party has simply gone off the rails at this point, while the Democrats are essentially "moderate Republicans."
But hone in on that one issue -- the most pressing, climate change -- and ask what not only the rhetoric is, but what the policies are, and see if there's any discernible difference. Turns out there is. Yes, a relatively small difference but, given our status, this reverberates throughout the world.
So we have one party, with Trump in the lead as the loudest, essentially denying anything is happening at all. Furthermore, he and the Republicans want to accelerate the problem -- and there's 3 years of policies that show this, which have been well documented.
We have another party who says the right things and who take only marginal steps forwards -- not nearly enough, like the Paris Accords. OK, not great -- but something. They've also shown to be much more influenceable in terms of progressive policies generally -- and this is crucial.
All of this may be long-winded and boring, and not as much fun as discussing character or about how corrupt the DNC is (which I agree with), but is there any real choice?
When these are the only options currently available, we should require a few seconds to make the easy choice, help get the less damaging party take control, and then continue hammering away at them. The other option, and one advocated here by a few people, is to vote third party, write-in, or not vote at all -- to send a message, for spite, for moral reasons, etc. All of which is a vote for Trump and the "most dangerous party in human history" (Chomsky). Why? Simple arithmetic. Another thing we can agree on.
I think the choice is clear.
Discussing this really misses the larger point, too. Remember that the real work is done not every 4 years when we get to push a button, but day after day of small steps -- small, local work. Organizing. Discussing issues with friends and families and neighbors. Educating people (and ourselves). Signing petitions, staging protests, initiating lawsuits, etc.
Sure. It's fairly easy to see what it will be, given there's nearly 4 years of well-documented policies already available. And the best way to predict future behavior is past behavior, as they say.
The most obvious thing to point out is that neither Trump nor the Republicans are even hiding their attitude towards this issue anymore. They are telling us, to our faces, that they don't believe there's an issue, they don't trust the scientists, they're "skeptical," etc.
As far as actions, the NYT (and others) have a running tab of environmental regulations that have been or are in the process of being destroyed. The biggest is car emissions standards and regulating methane leaks.
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/climate/trump-environment-rollbacks.html?fbclid=IwAR0xtmcECtsmHsq2Rst3sHZdu6Mt39_HPljzzuNh6_VdkQxNdTWXTp-4mSM
There's been the appointments of oil executives and lobbyists to the EPA, the censoring of scientific information, the removal of any mention of "climate change" from their website, etc etc.
He's opened up millions of acres of public lands for oil and gas extraction leases. Many are currently in the courts.
Trump has tried repeatedly, based on a campaign promise, to prop up a dying coal industry ("Trump digs coal!"), and has taken steps in doing so -- steps which had been dictated nearly verbatim from Murray Energy, a major Trump donor (now going bankrupt).
Then there's the pulling out of the Paris Agreement, which will happen a day after the election (if Trump is re-elected). Say what you will about the agreement (it has no teeth and barely does enough), it's something the US could be in the lead on. It's being abandoned altogether by Trump and co. We'll be an outlier as one of the only nations on earth not in the agreement.
All very well documented, not secret.
How does this compare with Biden? My suspicion is that although Biden claims to be in favor of a Green New Deal and has vowed to stop any "new" drilling, he'll try going the Obama route of encouraging natural gas (which produces less CO2 than coal and oil) and taking only baby steps towards Paris Accord goals, unless pressured by environmental groups to do more (which is at least possible, whereas with the Trump administration we hit a brick wall and are in fact fighting just to prevent any gains already made in the past from being destroyed).
So here we have a real easy comparison:
One administration denies anything is happening and happily takes orders from the fossil fuel industry, appointing their executives and lobbyists to the very institution in charge of monitoring them. In other words, wants to step on the gas so we go over the cliff quicker.
The other claims climate change is real and important, will stock the EPA, as in the past, with scientists, will remain in the Paris Accords, will prevent further drilling on public lands, will at least posture as a leader in this cause (which is important for other countries), and will be sympathetic to activist causes (like Native American protests of pipelines through tribal lands, etc). All of which really should be considered the bare minimum. Hopefully they do much more. But that's the choice.
If you want a detailed plan of what Biden is proposing, see here: https://joebiden.com/climate/
Remember, I'm not saying he's the environmentalist's dream candidate. But given the alternative, he might as well be.
This isn't any old issue, either. It's the issue of our time. We just can't mess around with it, it's too important. We have to get our priorities straight.
Sounds like a reasonable take on the issue, jgill.
We have to do both, really. The emphasis is in fact shifting more towards preparation as it becomes more and more obvious. The links aren't always obvious, either. So given a largely ignorant population, who keep electing deniers, we're all but guaranteeing our demise.
The best thing Biden and any leader can do is to simply listen to the scientists.
Biden thoughtfully considers, and replies: “The malfeasance manifested here is notable for its incongruity, bar none. At least that’s what my Grandpa always said”. The girl is naturally speechless after hearing these words of wisdom.
Meanwhile many miles away in an oval-shaped office, a man dances gleefully like Rumplestiltskin, while singing and muttering “got ya now, creepy Joe... the end is coming fast, and you’re just too slow!”
Thank you kindly, sir. :pray:
Yes I know. I began with "don't bother with people who..." and then went on about that. It wasn't directed at you, it was directed at your interlocutors.
Well in that case, yeah I'd vote Trump.
Do you believe Tara Reade?
Yes.
What do you think it says about Biden?
That he's a creepy asshole. What's your point? Because you're missing mine. See above.
If you're implying he's the anti-Christ because of this, I might remind you that Trump has been credibly accused by over a dozen women. So given this awful choice, if he's not tried and convicted, I'll vote for him -- because the alternative is far worse. It's not an endorsement of Biden, the DNC, the Democratic party generally, his personality, his history, his ideology. It's a vote for an administration that will be more open to listening to scientists, will stock scientists in the EPA, will appoint non-reactionary justices to the Supreme Court, etc.
I could definitely live without Biden and in fact think he's a terrible, terrible choice -- once again. It should have been Sanders.
He must be (or think himself), or was at one point, a charismatic and authoritarian leader (his underlings are just that, underlings, who are there to service him, and they should be thankful for it). All that really matters to him is therefore the continuation of his own authority. Needing to perform well as an actual leader (effective high level decision making) is actually secondary because his underlings take care of all of that. He is a people person, through and through.
He likes to get real close to people he's attracted to... Close enough to really smell them...
Close enough to sexually assault them
Her story isn't actionable as far as I'm concerned. I still feel like I have to consider it as a possibility, though. If it's true, I think it says something about his generation. I'm not sure what it says about him. That he viewed women as sex objects? Does he still? Don't know.
I don't think any men have come forward claiming to have been assaulted by him. I think it's more of a sexual thing than an authority issue. I think he was checking to see if she would respond to him. She didn't, so we have a story of the beginning of a rape without the follow-through.
I haven't actually been paying full attention to the details (scandal exhausts me at this point), but I think the story is that he inserted his finger into her vagina while she was suck between him and a wall. That's full blown "rape". If it was, in Biden's mind, a normal and acceptable sexual advance, then i think that strengthens my point.
Normal human beings do not go around compulsively and casually extracting sexual gratification from others without adequate context and consent. I only know of one stereotype that does this ("the charismatic leader"); perhaps it's because high charisma leaders with authority can consistently get away with it (the lack of repercussions is certainly a factor which allows these manipulative personalities to develop).
Thus guaranteeing a rapist remains in office, but with the added benefit of destroying the planet.
Makes sense I guess.
Sexually no, but I don't think Biden is bi-sexual.
Biden does seem to be losing his temper quite often of late though. Challenging his supporters to fist fights and what not...
Raped if we do, raped if we don't... -Murica'.
To be fair, since we are less confident about the veracity of the claims against Biden than the claims against Trump (and since there's only one claim against Biden) we can still take the statistically better option and vote for Biden, the least raping-est candidate left standing!
Gosh, just imagine how glorious it will be:
"Introducing White-house Plus! Now with 50% less rape!"
Maybe he's losing it.
And the cracks might be beginning to show what was skillfully hidden all along.
...
Why can't we have even a single nice thing these days?...
It's not a vote for Trump. It's this society that chose. I don't want to be a part of it.
Come what may, I'll deal with it. But it's abstract from whatever rapist you decide represents you.
Rapists don't represent me.
You can imagine a twisted backroom plan where the Dems and the GOP got together and agreed to both put up rapists for president as a sick demonstration of how they have the American public so cowed and trained that the vast majority of voters literally cannot imagine any alternative to the point where many of them will rabidly attack, mock, and pillory anyone who suggests there is one. High fives all round for the one-vulture two-wings party.
Quoting neonspectraltoast
Respect. :clap:
There's a portion of my backyard that was overtaken by English ivy. I stuck a Buddha statue into the middle of it. It's awesome. Plus there was a bunch of brush which I turned into a branch sculpture.
My understanding is that once states come off lockdown, the shit will probably start hitting the fan in June and July, so I'm enjoying the little things.
I can at least pretend to have a few zen moments before the second half of this god forsaken year comes to fuck us all...
The little things are all we have left, lol....
We have a new normal.
It's an interesting phenomenon not limited to here. I think it has to do with shame - the shame of being put in an impossible situation (Trump or Biden?), and the minimal psychic relief that is offered when one imgines oneself Stoically doing one's duty regardless - as if a sacrifice for a cause. Those who refuse the blackmail of 'choice', make a mockery of this idea of self-sacrifice - they realize that the choice is not an impossible one, but in so doing they deprive the shamed voters of their sacrifical self-image. That shame turns to anger as they lash out because those who refuse the 'choice' don't let them have their minimal justification for voting for a rapist (either way).
I mean, it takes huge psychic mutilation to convince oneself that one should commit oneself to one rapist over another, while still preserving some image of self-integrity; that someone else doesn't see themselves as being bound to make that choice is going to result in some major pathology on the part of the shamed voter. That pathology comes out in a pretty vile anger, and unsuprisingly - at least here - cashed out in sexual insults. Like a sublimation of political impotence projected onto others as sexual impotence. It's very sad, and I feel sorry for them. But this is the kind of thing that the system generates. Wretched people, turned against each other and themselves, for the sake of that system. A basic Marxist point, relevant in this situation.
Speaking of what the system generates and how that's currently being accelerated.
"Coronavirus — or more accurately — the lack of response to it will probably finish off what’s left of the American economy. America will end up a country with permanently lower levels of all the following: employment, income, savings, trust, happiness, assets, and so forth. America was already in the process of becoming something very much like a poor country, with the failed politics of one, too — but Coronavirus will accelerate and finalize America’s grim transformation into poverty, paralysis, and collapse."
https://eand.co/the-american-economy-is-imploding-and-america-is-too-e998d3cfb1d9
And voting in a rapist.
But feeling morally superior for sitting and doing nothing. Kudos.
Yes, one currently does and will continue to. If you're OK with that, best of luck to you.
Yes, not voting or voting third party is indeed a vote for Trump.
Simple arithmetic. Very 1984.
No, that would be you. You've just said you believe Reade.
Jesus, this is like me telling someone if they don't punch someone in the face just like I'm going to, they're guilty of battery.
Sometimes the best response is to let the stupid speak for itself and then laugh.
Quoting Xtrix
Lol.
And not voting is voting in Trump, also a rapist. The difference is one administration can be pressured to not destroy the environment completely, the other cannot. It's really that simple. No one is saying it's a good choice, you just don't want to hear it.
It's pathological as you said. The attempt to shame someone else for refusing to do what they themselves are doing.
Anyway, also from the article and worth quoting:
"That brings me to my fourth transformation: as a result of depression, an economy’s whole structure tends to change. As groups, classes, segments. Think of America not so long ago. It’s structure resembled a bell curve. A broad middle class, a small number of rich, and a larger — but still small — number of poor. And then around 2010, for the first time, America’s middle class became a minority. The gentle bell curve was on its way to becoming something more like a U-shape: a caste society of very rich, and everyone else: the imploded middle and the old working class who became the left-behinds, all of whom became the new poor, that 80% living paycheck to paycheck.
Coronavirus will accelerate that change, too. America’s already dying middle and working class will finally crumble and coalesce into one vast permanent underclass. America will have effectively a massive pool of something very much like easily, algorithmically exploited technofeudal neoserfs — people who’ve reverted to servitude to make a living, only their overseer is an app. Those “low income service jobs” are economists’ jargon for “people becoming servants again.” To whom? To a kakistocracy, if you like — a class that’s the opposite of aristocrats, who were supposed, at least, to the best and brightest. America’s ruling class is now visibly made of predators, the kinds of men who put men in cages, or addict a whole society to painkillers, just to make more money they’ll never spend."
Pull the lever (Biden). Don't pull the lever (Trump). How many people are on the tracks in front of either? It certainly seems like there are more on the Trump side.
Do we have time to build another track?
Simple arithmetic isn't so simple. My fault.
You have two people. A votes, B abstains. If B had voted, it would cancel out vote A. By not voting, A vote counts and that candidate wins.
The act of pressing a button is irrelevant.
Only true thing you've said so far.
It's not about "shame," it's about logic. You claim to care about rape, yet you believe not voting absolves you of any responsibility in what happens. It doesn't. By abstaining, you're helping Trump -- unless you're a conservative. Is he not a rapist?
You've also avoided, multiple times now, the real issues -- e.g., climate policy. Which is crucial. As I've said many times, it's not about Biden as a person. We can keep it about history and character if we want to decide that way -- fine. That's superficial and easy. If it were only about that, I probably wouldn't vote either.
The real issue, if we truly care about what we profess to care about, is about which administration (not the persona) is most damaging. Is that Trump's administration or Biden's?This is the only question that's relevant. If you don't think there's a difference, we're back to where we started. I'd argue there is a definite difference.
There's an OECD report out (I'll have to try to dig it up) that predicts on current trends (under Dem and Republican leadership) America is going to look like the Philippines or Brazil within 50 years and, to your point, even the most social democratic states in Europe will have deteriorated to the level America is in now.
First of all, there are potential third party options, so abstaining is not necessarily the only way to not vote for a rapist. As for your "logic", if you can't work out how stupid what you're saying is you should not be on this forum. It is literal nonsense.
No it doesn't. It's not only very probable, it happens all the time. E.g. Trump, Clinton. What planet do you live on?
Funny coming from the person who once stated:
Quoting Baden
Voting third party, as I've stated before, is also a vote for Trump (again, unless you would have voted Republican). If your goal is to vote out the most destructive administration, by abstaining or voting third party you're having the opposite effect. That is, indeed, idiotic logic -- I agree.
I'm also not alone in this argument. I've cited Chomsky a number of times, for example. If I'm in the same "idiotic" league as Chomsky, I take it as a compliment.
It's interesting you get so emotional about all of this. By all means don't let me disillusion you. But I'd recommend not engaging on public forums.
It's not an ad hom, you are literally saying extremely stupid things. For example, by your logic, abstaining from voting means voting for Trump and Biden simultaneously (why would it only mean voting for Trump?) and voting for a third party must mean voting for Trump, Biden, and that third party simultaneously. I'm not engaging with you anymore until you stop that. I think you're doing it on purpose.
This is right, actually. But it's not about Trump or Biden as people -- one's a sociopath, the other is borderline senile. Both are fairly empty. But once you look at the policies being carried out, and I've mentioned the most important (in my view) -- climate change -- then it's fairly obvious how many people will be harmed by Trump compared to Biden's administration. Body counts and human suffering matters.
So we have to at least get rid of the cancer and prevent the worst from happening. Then we deal with Biden -- even impeach him, who cares? Maybe he'll be replaced before November -- that'd be fine too. I doubt it, but it's possible. Doesn't change the fact that Trump is the worst.
It's not improbable because politicians abuse their power all the time. And in this particular case, Reade reported the exact same story at the time to her neighbor and others. I think it's more likely true than not based on those facts alone. So, why do you think it's improbable?
So you've cited Chomsky. And? Far as I know, Chomsky made a pragmatic argument which I've not criticized (though I may disagree with it). It's the attempts at vote-shaming I've been objecting to. And it's those that destroy your credibility, not your pragmatic arguments, which I can see some reason in.
So "idiotic" and "stupid" aren't ad homs? Have it your way. I'm not offended, but I found it interesting given what you've said in the past.
Quoting Baden
When did I say this? I've said several times now that if you believe in progressive policies (as I believe you do, though perhaps I'm wrong), and if your goal is to prevent the most damaging administration from wielding power, then it follows that you vote against the least progressive and the more damaging. That is, indeed, logic.
Quoting Baden
Again, I'm not sure where you get "simultaneously." Rather, it's a vote for Trump. Why? Because you know very well a third party candidate has no chance of winning (I assume), and that's not the reason you're voting for them in the first place -- you're voting for them, as you've made quite clear, because you can't vote for a rapist.
That's fine, but what you fail to see is that by essentially throwing away your vote, which would otherwise have gone to the candidate which is less harmful, you're assisting the more harmful candidate (in this case Trump) to win. This happened last time as well with Clinton -- were the protest votes worth four years of Trump? I didn't like her either, but I can say definitely that the answer is "No."
Quoting Baden
Does this not count? Well regardless: by all means stop engaging.
And Chomsky is an idiot on this. Much like his linguistics.
Yes, I know -- which is why I gave a detailed response to you before on the issues, which you said you'd respond to and never did. Was that vote-shaming? I haven't once said, for example, that you're an idiot for voting third party. So who's attempting to "shame" whom?
In any case, I'll be clear: I'm not trying to shame anyone. If I came off that way, it's unintended.
Yawn.
Lol. And you know, too, because you've read some Daniel Everett. Good for you,
Double yawn.
Maybe it's best if you two just talk to yourselves. This way you won't have to learn anything, resting assured everyone else is an idiot.
What's sad is that you both apparently aren't adolescents. That at least would make the behavior understandable. Makes you wonder about how they pick "moderators" on this platform. :roll:
I'd advise you to go back and read what you said about @neonspectraltoast and the arguments you used to support that. Maybe I should have just described them as "gibberish" instead of "stupid". Other stuff you said previously did give me some insight, but accusing someone of supporting a rapist when that's exactly what you're doing (by your own contention that Biden is guilty) and what they're refusing to do, I found annoying. The pragmatic stuff I just disagree with.
This is what I said:
Quoting Xtrix
Was this "shaming"? Was it throwing around insults?
It's pointing out what in my view is the obvious case: the more progressive people don't vote (as he is indicating here), the greater chances for the worst candidate, thus guaranteeing a rapist is in office (since Trump is also a rapist, allegedly) with the added benefit of destroying the planet.
Where is the upside? Explain that to me. Is it simply feeling better about not pushing a button for either candidate? If that's the case, it's understandable -- but in my view still a very big mistake. If it is something about teaching the DNC a lesson, also understandable -- but I don't see that this turned out so well the first time.
Quoting Baden
But who cares about annoyance? You're quite annoying to me too. I'm still able to pose an argument. If I'm missing something, show me I'm wrong. I don't even care if it comes with insults and sarcasm -- I can deal with it. But I haven't seen that done here. It's just adolescent posturing and nothing more. I'm happy to stand corrected.
This is what I responded to. Why didn't you quote that?
Quoting Xtrix
Quoting Xtrix
Yes.
Not every vote is strategic or instrumental. Many votes are “expressive”, perhaps a matter of ethics or moral obligation.
That's another angle on it, yes. Some people actually believe in the principle of voting for those who most represent them, both in terms of policy and character, regardless of strategic considerations. And if everyone voted that way, the two party system would eventually cease to exist because it relies on a despairing cynicism for the most part. In fact, that is the only way out of it.
OK -- and what framework is that exactly? We don't see eye-to-eye on Trump's administration, for example, accelerating the climate crisis with its policies? Or that both parties are essentially two factions of big business? Perhaps -- always seemed like we agreed on those things though. I think it's a matter that you're just projecting onto me things that aren't there. My argument is indeed a pragmatic one but a logical one also given my premises are correct about our goals. I've stated clearly what mine are -- I've yet to hear yours, besides emotional reasons (which I sympathize with).
It's not 'more pragmatic' to vote for Biden; it's acquiescing in a political suicide that's slower, rather than faster. A change of pace is not a change of direction.
The framework that says everyone has to vote for a Dem or a Republican no matter who they are, or what they've done, or even what policies they have (as long as they're not as bad as the other guy).
Yes, voting for Biden as the lesser of two evils just kicks the problem into the ever-lengthening grass.
@Xtrix
What you're doing from this point of view is making things worse in the long term for some minor short-term gain.
"Regardless of strategic considerations"? OK, in that case I agree. Like I've said before, I wanted Bernie Sanders as the nominee. In the end the votes weren't there. Granted, largely due to the media and the DNC rallying around Biden, but that could have been overcome. It wasn't -- should I be upset? Yes, and I am -- at the voters as well. But that seems to be the reality right now. Given this, what is left besides making a strategic choice -- if indeed one considers the goal of removing a cancer "strategy"?
It's not that you HAVE to. You don't HAVE to exercise and eat better, but if your goal is to lose weight that's something you should do. My top priority is addressing the climate crisis, as this is an existential threat. I assume we all agree on that. It's only one example, and there are others, but it's a good one because of its importance. If our goal is to remove an administration that is exacerbating the crisis during a time when scientists tell us we have 10-20 years to act in a meaningful way, what should we do? What achieves that goal?
Even strategically, the long term better strategy is to withdraw support from the Dems, at the very least until they become something like a left wing party. But as per street above, I think it's ultimately a systemic problem and your ability to resist is being whittled further and further away until eventually the people will be so weak the state will just be able to stomp all over them literally as well as figuratively. I don't have a very good answer here. But I can recognize a bad one when I see it.
If I really thought Trump's further reign would make a huge difference globally on climate, it might sway me but, having read your last detailed post on it, I don't think even you believe it's decisive.
It's in fact exactly the opposite, given the reshaping of the courts and climate policy -- both having a lasting impact on people for years to come. Did voting third party in 2016 not have long-lasting effects? Trump has confirmed 1/4 of the circuit judges and two SCOTUS justices, for example. Plus we don't have time to play around.
It doesn't bother you at all that Trump or Biden will be the president one way or another? If I believed another candidate was viable, I'd be doing all I could to vote for them. This is all we have, currently. This is why Bernie Sanders has endorsed Biden (and Clinton), because at least then there is some say in what is done. With Trump, we're toast.
I think the better strategy is to elect them and demand actions from them, not to (perhaps inadvertently) assist their opposition, who happen to be extremely dangerous.
Quoting Baden
Then perhaps I didn't communicate it clearly enough: if Trump is re-elected, the odds for organized human life in the future are greatly diminished. It'll be a clear disaster, as any climate scientist will tell you.
What I said was that Biden is not the environmentalist's dream candidate and will not go as far as I'd like to see (in all probability). But being a +2 against a -15 is still a large improvement indeed.
I'd be interested in your perspective.
I don't think the answer is withdrawing, I think it's fighting. I think it's activism, organization, protests, lawsuits, etc. etc. Voting is only one action, done every four years. That's very limited democracy indeed, as you know. That doesn't mean we shouldn't do it, but it shouldn't be considered our only means of participation. Given our resources in this country, we have plenty of options available to us. This is how things change -- form the civil rights movement to the environmental movement to the gay rights movement. I am not advocating for a two-party system or even for the democratic party -- long term I'd like to see this destroyed -- but we have to think a little bigger than what button we push every four years, and it's in that larger context that we make that choice (which shouldn't take much mental effort, really): which of these rich, empty white guys do we think we can push more in the right direction? That's the attitude I take. We're also at a time where it really does matter, too, given climate change and nuclear weapons. It's no longer localized. So it won't do to simply walk away -- and even if that were a powerful strategy, we simply don't have the time to gamble on it. Too much needs to be done right now.
So if I were you, I'd help elect an administration that I could have some influence on and then help remove the puppet that they've installed if I believe he deserves removal. Not easy, but much more likely than if Trump is in office, and far better than passivity.
Remember, the democratic party IS changing -- look at AOC and Bernie. It's small, but that didn't happen from simply withdrawing support, it happened by fighting for something. Both run as Democrats...is that an issue? Is that supporting the DNC?
"Congressional Democrats pretend they are really putting up an opposition to Trump, even though they keep supporting his corporate bailout bills — and progressive organizations in DC ask us to applaud the bait and switch. [As for Biden,] consider how condescending, how mocking, the entire “task force” dance really is. It’s as if the Biden campaign went into the basement of the DNC, dusted off a three-ring binder from 1983 titled “How To Run Campaigns,” and turned to page 863b for the section entitled “Post-Primary Unity Blueprint” — and we are all expected to pretend that this is something real.
We all know in our hearts that we don’t really need another “climate task force” — we know we just need a Democratic nominee who commits to supporting existing Green New Deal legislation; We all know we don’t really need a “health care task force.” We know we just need a Democratic nominee who commits to not vetoing Medicare for All legislation that is already co-sponsored by a majority of US House Democrats; We know all of this, so don’t deny it. We know Biden could just choose right now to endorse these things, and we know he is actively choosing not to do that — at least not yet. He is instead ripping the page out of that ancient DNC binder and choosing to put forward vague task forces, expecting us all to pretend he isn’t deliberately shirking concrete legislative commitments, and further pretend that a task force process is some serious, truthful, totally above-board move for consensus".
---
https://theintercept.com/2020/05/12/heroes-act-coronavirus-health-insurance-industry/
Re: the democratic party's latest bailout bill:
"This week, Axios reported that House Democrats are working on legislation to “ensure that people aren’t ‘double-dipping’ into the different pots of money” — for instance, “they do not want someone who is receiving more unemployment money to also receive money through the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP).”; At the same time, Democratic lawmakers are pushing new bills that would let corporate lobbying organizations and dark money groups in Washington grab some of that dwindling PPP money for themselves before the cash gets to more mom-and-pop businesses teetering on the brink of bankruptcy. Moreover, the legislation would knowingly help some politically connected industries effectively double-dip on giant bailouts for themselves."
--
All this to say nothing of the democrats' acceding to the latest expansion of the 'patriot' act (which, to recall, Biden practically wrote).
--
Anyone who thinks Joe Biden and the democrats have anything to offer are fucking delusional. Even if one could be convinced to ignore Biden's past maliciousness - which is anything but 'past' insofar as millions of people are currently paying for it today - even his current conduct and that of his party are fucking evil. Any dewey eyed belief in whatever dangling promissory note he has to offer is insanity. It's like those wretched battered partners of abusive relationships who believe - against all reason and evidence - that things will change after the baby of the election.
If you do not vote...you will not be "sitting this one out." You will be helping Trump. Trump, and the GOP, are hoping as many people as possible "sit this one out." Trump and the GOP are doing every thing they can to get as many people as possible to "sit this one out."
It happens all the time????????
A person who has never been accused of any kind of sex deviance at all...and a SENATOR at that...
...attempts to assault a woman IN THE HALLS OF THE SENATE IN THE CAPITOL BUILDING!
Backs the woman against the wall...and manages to insert his fingers into her vagina?
THAT happens all the time?
What planet do YOU live on, Baden?
This one, where the American halls of political power are filled to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_federal_political_sex_scandals_in_the_United_States with sexual misconduct.
The pearl clutching is hilarious. Your senators and representatives are sexual freaks, and have been since day one. Biden 'hair sniff hall predator' is no exception, but a conformist to the rule.
So you are another one who thinks senators regularly back staffers into walls and shove their fingers up their vaginas?
Jesus H. Christ!
Scratch an establishment politican, find a moral lowlife.
There is a "judicial record" of senators backing staffers up against the walls in the Capitol Building...and shoving their fingers into their vaginas?
What the hell world are you living in?
:sparkle: Here it is again. :sparkle:
Here's at least :sparkle: 90 lawmakers since 2017 :sparkle: at the state level alone.
Maybe step outside every once in a while, little lamb.
Wow...a list. What next...a grocery list?
Please point out on that list where a senator backed a woman up against a wall in the Capitol Building...and put his forced his hands into her vagina.
THAT was what we were discussing.
Supposedly, according to Baden, it happens all the time.
So?
Also you like using explicit sexual imaginary alot. You got some issues to work out. Maybe stay away from women for the time being. Maybe forever.
We were discussing senators forcing staff up against a wall and forcing their fingers into their vagina.
We were discussing how difficult that would be.
Now you are presenting cases of politicians doing things that easily can be done...as evidence that the near impossible could easily be done.
Quit while you are far behind. You obviously do not have the intellectual resources to catch up.
I honestly don't think most Americans value decency. They value prestige.
And people here - and elsewhere - want to reward them for it, and then blame those who do not.
Notably, unlike a certain bullshit effort of mental gymnastics in which not voting counts as voting, this is a rather straightforward case in which voting for someone tautologically implies support.
No. YOU are, though.
You are moving the goalposts all over the place to make it seem you have a decent argumetn.
Ain't gonna happen...because you do not.
So...best to continue with the deflection. That IS what you've got.
I support Joe Biden. He was not my first choice...but he is a fine choice.
He is a decent man who has been pragmatic throughout his career. He's make lots of mistakes...which is what happens when you do a lot.
So withhold your vote...and aid Trump.
Sounds to me like you should be supporting him outright. You sound like one of those kind.
You've got rather low expectations.
No, I do not have low expectations. I have realistic expectations.
And I am not as jaded as some of the people who populate the Internet forums.
At 83, I've seen several instances of "these are the worst of times."
Meh. I did live during the Second World War...so I've seen some really horrible times. But even then, I was living in America...and the shooting and bombing being felt in Europe and the Far East were not a part of my life.
I did live during the Vietnam War...and the turbulent 60's - 70's. In some ways, that was even more ghastly.
I lived through the Nixon era...and thought that was horrendous. But compared with today...that was a piece of cake. Nixon, with all of his faults, was ten times the president that Trump could ever be...even if Trump were able to get past mental age 8.
Biden will be enough of an improvement over Trump to make all this chatter about his "character" and "intellectualism" to be like talking about sunscreen during a nuclear attack.
I get that you're at the point where voting for the lesser evil feels like a morally outstanding act (I disagree but we don't need to repeat that dance ad nauseum). But you're still voting for a sleazebag so let's not call Biden decent, shall we?
We are all responsible for the reasonably predictable consequences of our actions. We can predict with reasonable certainty that a second Trump term will be a catastrophe for the US and the larger world. With Biden, at least there is a chance of improvement.
In a perfect world we would not have to choose between two deeply flawed candidates, but - as the saying goes - we need to accept that there are things we cannot change. I wish that the Democratic Party had found a better candidate, but if it comes down to Biden vs. Trump, I will hold my nose and vote for Biden.
That said, even if we go with your notion that voting for someone tautologically implies support, there are varying levels and degrees of support. You can like certain things about a candidate and dislike others.
If you would otherwise vote Democrat but are staying at home or voting 3rd party because of your dislike of Biden, then you are tautologically casting a vote for Trump.
Again with the mental gymnastics.
A third of Republicans say they dont know. What convinced you?
I do mental gymnastics every day - it's part of my exercise routine.
How do you like them apples?
I see. Could you tell me what in his voting history you object to?
- opposed to Medicare for all despite a pandemic raging
- Mandatory minimum sentencing. When he declared "It doesn’t matter whether or not [accused criminals are] the victims of society. I don’t want to ask, ‘What made them do this?' They must be taken off the street." Well, fuck you too Joe.
- Biden "let's segregate students" https://www.nbcnews.com/news/nbcblk/joe-biden-didn-t-just-compromise-segregationists-he-fought-their-n1021626
- He voted for every possible war: Iraq and Afghanistan, intervening in Kosovo
- an uncritical self-proclaimed zionist
Is that your perspective? That Biden is racist?
I consider Biden to be a decent man...and an intelligent one.
If you do not like that consideration...don't read what I write.
I had a higher priority choice, but now that Biden has it, I support him with enthusiasm. Our country will be a much better country with him at the helm.
Slightly less bad maybe. It seems you've lost all sense of decency and social justice. I suppose if you live in a sewer you'll eventually stop smelling shit.
And succeeding -- again. You have to hand it to them -- they know how to play the game, so well in fact that they'll get millions of people to vote against their interests -- including progressives.
Best bet is to ignore that one until he grows up or says something interesting. No sense pretending to have a rational conversation.
Quoting Frank Apisa
The impulse to want to do the morally upstanding thing is fine -- but what these people don't want to here is that this is both missing the point (because it's not simply about a candidate's character) and will actually cause more long-term damage, counter to their professed goals.
Exactly right, but also something more important: will a Biden administration or Trump administration be more open to progressive goals? Take them both out of the equation -- I don't like either -- and answer the question seriously. I don't think it's that hard. So why should we shoot ourselves in the foot because the DNC are corrupt? They managed to rally around Biden and got enough people to vote for him. It was sleazy how they did that, but in my view rolling over isn't an option. First, kick Trump out, the secondly push the Democrat administration towards what we (and Bernie) want. This is in fact why Bernie is supporting Biden, who's already made concessions (and ought to).
Simple arithmetic, yes. A vote for third party is a throw-away vote. No one is arguing seriously that a third party candidate has a chance of winning. To throw a vote away that would otherwise have gone to a less harmful candidate is helping the more damaging party (which is also not seriously disputed). It may make you feel better, and you may think you're doing the right thing -- fine. But let's not argue with simple counting.
If Donald gets more apples than Joe, he's going to drive up to your house (or apartment) and dump a truckload of toxic waste in your front yard.
Then he going to takes everyone's apples away from them except for people he likes.
True. But if I, your neighbor, votes for Trump and you've abstained, then Trump wins.
No one is saying you're literally casting a vote for Trump, Baden. If this is what you're hung up on, then I gladly retract it: you are NOT in fact casting a vote for Trump. You are, however, assisting Trump in getting elected. Perhaps I should have said you're "essentially casting a vote for Trump," but I figured this didn't need to be said and that you'd assume I didn't actually believe you were literally writing in Trump's name or pushing a button for him.
Put it this way: because you have not given your apple to either candidate, Trump now has one apple and Biden has 0. Trump wins with more apples. Thus you've inadvertently helped Trump win -- which he knows quite well, which is why he encourages Bernie to run as an independent and for those upset about how Bernie was treated to not vote. We learned from 2016 what the consequences are from this. (And this is not to blame only third party voters.)
I'm sure you don't dispute this. From my reading, it seems you just don't see much of a difference between the two, e.g. what you said about climate policy. In that case I just disagree and then the discussion becomes about whether or not there is a significant difference. But at least let's not argue about arithmetic.
The reason isn't a bad one -- Biden is a terrible candidate. But what will be the consequences? Possible destruction of organized human life and at the very least a completely overhauled judicial branch, which will reverberate for generations to come. To top it off -- there will still be a rapist in office.
The person with the most votes (in the right states thanks to the electoral college) wins. It's not difficult.
What's apparently difficult is understanding how throwing away a vote also has an effect -- one that runs counter to one's professed goals.
:lol:
Quoting Xtrix
You're not in any way casting a vote for Trump.
Quoting Xtrix
Yeah, very different thing. The language matters because it's about responsibility. The only people directly responsible for Trump being in office are those who vote for him.
It's like: if I sit on the floor and hold my breath, maybe someone will notice and care, and do some unspecified good because of my display of toddlerhood.
Bullshit.
The only people who think that way...are people who don't truly think. They just shoot off their mouths.
An election is about a lot more than getting people to vote FOR you...it also is about working to insure others DO NOT vote for your opponent.
That is the reason the GOP is so anxious to get as few people to the polls as possible...because fewer people voting help insure their victory.
People with your mindset, Baden, are as much responsible for Trump having been elected...as are the people who actually voted for Hillary Clinton.
And people with your mindset may be responsible for getting Trump re-elected. All so that you can claim some bogus moral superiority.
I repeat something I previously shared: People with your mindset, Baden, are the reason brilliant men like Voltaire, Confucius, and Shakespeare wrote:
“The best is the enemy of the good.”
"Better a diamond with a flaw than a pebble without."
“Striving to better, oft we mar what's well.”
Fine. And we who are opposed to Trump, recognizing that he is a sociopath and, more importantly, runs an administration that is destroying the prospects of future human life, have what kind of responsibility? None? "Indirect"?
Eh, let's not make it a cartoon version. Their intentions are well-meaning, in my view, but they're simply making a mistake. They don't see the full implications of another Trump term, or don't see Biden as any different.
To reduce it to utter simplicity: let's say both men are equally terrible as people, man A and man B. One will destroy the planet (terrible man A), one will not (terrible man B) -- and we acknowledge this fact, say fact "X."
Given X, who do you want to see in charge? (Fully acknowledging it's still a bad choice indeed.)
If it's the latter (B), then the next question is: what if I sit out, or vote for someone besides the two terrible men?
If the answer turns out to be: it helps man A, what then? Do we change our mind and vote directly for man B? If not, given we accept X, how can we live with this choice? Is it not saying that doing the "right thing" is a greater priority -- is more important -- than human existence?
I think the problem with the people on this thread is that they don't accept X. But that's exactly what I want to discuss, because I think there's overwhelming evidence supporting it, which comes directly from science.
It's not about Trump or Biden though, it's Republican and Democratic. I guess it takes a view from outside the USA to realise how marginal those differences are.
Never mind. frank hasn't been following the conversation.
To a degree, I agree. If Trump really were about to, let's say, start a nuclear war then there would be an argument that just about anyone with a pulse would be a better option and in order to avert that disaster, they should vote for them. But I just don't see that level of difference. I see a regular GOP vs Dem election with the GOP candidate being a horrible boor with zero morals peddling shitty policies, but not one likely to start a war and not one capable of single-handedly destroying the planet (or America). There are other progressives who would go further and say Trump is actually better than Biden in some ways, just like they thought he was better than Hillary. I'm not making that argument and I wouldn't even criticize progressives for holding their noses and voting for Biden, seeing as there are likely practical benefits to doing so. I've only been arguing against the idea that progressives are obligated to give the Democrats their vote simply because Trump is a bad candidate. I see that as a form of blackmail. Nobody owes their vote to anyone. It has to be earned.
Quoting Benkei
I don't really think you believe this.
Quoting Benkei
But they are very much different. This is the point I'd like to hone in on, because if I saw no difference than yes there would be no point in voting at all.
Quoting Benkei
Elections are largely PR affairs, we're given two "choices" of buttons to push, and we're told that this is democracy. I agree that it isn't. But that doesn't negate our agency -- it just means we should see it for what it is, vote for the least damaging candidate, and continue with the real work of changing society.
It doesn't mean we throw up our hands and see it all as the same. There are differences between the two parties, and they matter. So we vote for the party or candidate that is more likely to come around to progressive ideas. As I said, that should take about 5 minutes to decide and then we continue our day-to-day activist work.
I think you think essentially only the election matters, it's meaningless, and the way to change it is to do -- nothing? I disagree with all of this, needless to say.
Not really. They are fairly marginal. But given that we're the most powerful country on earth, those "marginal" differences still matter a great deal. Just compare Obama and Trump -- not just personalities, but their policies. It's just pure intellectual laziness to declare they're both the same because they both largely serve corporate interests. That's far too simplistic. Compare them on healthcare. Compare them on climate change. Etc.
But let's say Biden succeeds in banning fracking throughout the US. Couldn't three presidents down the line start it back up?
My Trump/Biden concern has to do with which one is likely to create the most tension in the world, leading to needless bloodshed.
It's like you're Dr Jeckyl and Mr Hyde. Mr Hyde is the real one?
I know -- so let's discuss it. Then it at least becomes a matter of facts and evidence rather than character and speculations (or allegations -- which I happen to believe).
Quoting Baden
Ruling out nuclear war -- which I would argue he is indeed accelerating, with climate policy it's almost a truism. But leave even that aside and take the judiciary. That's crucial, and surely not short-term, as you know. McConnell has been vigilant about appointing judges because he knows this is the only way the GOP can maintain power given the shifting demographics, so that 1/4 of circuit judges are now Trump appointees. What will it look like in 2024? Trump has already gotten 2 SCOTUS picks and will almost certainly get two more in the next four years (unless RBG finds the fountain of youth). That's a 7-2 reactionary court, which will take decades to undo. This doesn't concern you?
Again, let Biden be investigated. We don't have to like him. Let him be thrown out of office for all I care. It's not about him as a character, even without the allegations. There are just greater factors at stake here.
I do. I'm not into these utilitarian calculi where the lesser evil vote results in me thinking I did the morally upright thing. Utilitarianism isn't my cup of tea. If you don't have agency and your fellow voters don't either, then you don't have a position to morally judge them. It's those that pursue the status quo that ought to be judged, those that pull the levers in the DNC, that have the connections to steer the media narrative, the Sanders campaign team for having learned fuck all from 2016. Blame them.
Quoting Xtrix
I have. Matters of degrees. Obama did fuck all for the environment, Trump is worse but the endgame is the same. Biden wants to have a committee, which is just another word for "doing nothing". What major overhaul has Trump affected for healthcare? Trump wants to build a wall? Who expulsed the most immigrants? Obama.
EDIT: I get utilitarianism works for a lot of people in many instances and it's fine as a moral compass in most situations - it's just that, as this thread shows, some people have different moral intuitions.
Ok, in that case I agree. I consider myself "progressive," and I don't feel I'm obligated or that I "owe" Biden anything. What I owe the country and the future of the planet is to remove the cancer from office. The next step -- and this is important -- is to push the Biden administration to the extreme. If he doesn't listen at all, then perhaps the next election vote in a (sensible) Republican out of spite. But the Republicans are now so dangerous that I can't see myself voting for them unless there's a major overhaul, particularly about science.
Yes, Biden believes climate change is real, Trump says it's a hoax. I'd say that's a few degrees of difference. And it's reflected in policies.
Quoting Benkei
The endgame is the same? I'm not sure what this means.
Quoting Benkei
Biden, even if he can't be pressured to do more (which is the crucial point), will likely only take baby steps forward. Compare that to Trump's policies, which take us twenty steps backwards. I don't see how that's the same.
As for Trump and healthcare -- again, Obamacare isn't great, but it's something. What has Trump done? Weakened it, offered nothing in its place, tried to repeal it, etc.
I'm not an apologist for Obama -- I'm saying we should acknowledge that there are indeed differences, and they matter. Obama did stop the Dakato Access pipeline construction, for example -- which Trump immediately permitted. That matter to the Native Americans protesting. May not seem like much, but it's relevant. The details matter.
THAT!
And also THAT.
I'm not voting, and I don't feel I matter enough to help determine who wins. Your idea of appealing to people like me is looking down on us and trying to shame us into voting. And for what? Biden? I can't relate to that clown.
A vote is a personal expression. It's about what you want to be personally responsible for. It's not what you say it is; it's what I say it is. And I don't like this society, of which Trump and Biden are both symptoms of the same problem.
You've got no problem with it. Fine. I do. I'm not into what this society is. Biden or Trump, you get the same society. Biden is just a placeholder for the next utter fascist who sparks the interest of the status quo.
In fact, we might be safer with Trump, because at least he's dumb and we all know it. What happens when a charismstic, yet evil, politician comes along? Electing Biden does nothing to change that fate. In fact, he engenders it.
The malfunction is society as a whole.
Ah. Coronavirus survivor from Wuhan said he learned that people are precious, be nice to everyone.
I guess it hasn't gotten close enough to us yet.
It's not a matter of respect. It's not about shaming, or bullying, or blind obligation. It's also not about character, since the candidates themselves are empty suits.
It's about rationality and logic. Given a set of premises, or in this case a set of goals, it can easily be shown what the correct decision is.
Quoting neonspectraltoast
Nor can I. I can't stand him. I wanted Bernie and campaigned for Bernie. I was arguing on this very forum for months about Bernie.
So this itself should tell you you've misunderstood me. It's not about Biden.
Quoting neonspectraltoast
That's just not true. It's a standard line used -- but it's false equivalence. The difference between a Biden administration and a Trump administration is very clear indeed. If you read further above, I've gone through multiple examples.
These people who think a lowest common denominator democracy - vote for this peice of shit because he's not this other, slightly bigger piece of shit - is a democracy worth having are not 'progressive'. They're the willing sonderkommandos of an irredeemable system.
good god, guy - domestic abusers and nazis? Easy, easy. At this rate of moral condemnation inflation, what are we going to call actual domestic abusers and Nazis? I'm tempermentally more inclined to take your position, minus the woozy rhetoric, but there are good arguments to be made - SCOTUS nominations etc.
Nah Proth, not you.
I was considering going for political katechons but I figured two obscure references would be a bit top heavy.
Bracketing both the rhetoric (and my general misgivings, real, about inflation of moral condemnation) I think your position (and it's mine too) makes most sense for people who don't have something particular at stake. You're not a US citizen, and I'm on the fringes, disconnected. For a lot of americans, especially minorities (glance quickly at the most recent ten or so supreme court cases and what they're about) it makes a big difference who gets installed as a powerful judge. So that's a tough spot to be in. I'm not saying that means anyone should feel they have to vote for Biden, but ---- it's a tough spot to be in, and it takes a little delicacy to give a good solution to this conundrum. There's probably some stormy rhetorical point that sets delicacy against [better, less limp, more virile virtue] to make and if you want to make that rhetorical point, that's fine, but I think there's an actual, interesting (even important!) discussion to be had here
I'm serious when I said earlier that the hope that Biden would change is no different from the hope that abused women have when their partners promise that everything will change after the baby, or the marriage ceremony, or whatever. If the sonderkommando call-out is a bit much, the domestic abuse tropes aren't. Everyone knows this script, everyone knows what will - or rather won't - happen. Call it bluster if you want. Biden is not the lesser evil. He's the same evil who just happens not to say the quiet part out loud. Look at his past actions. Look at his current actions. This is a man whose spent his whole life making the world a worse place to live in. He's not going to stop any time soon.
I'm not saying this ought to be an 'easy' choice for anyone. It's all the more soul destroying because every other option is the worst option. That the options are indeed clear-cut (Biden or bust) is the most bullshit thing about this whole 'debate'. 'The logical option' my ass.
*Do I get skin-in-the-game points if I mention that I've got a Chinese background? What should it even fucking matter? A racist cunt-bag is a racist cunt-bag is a Biden.
Let's say both men are equally terrible as people, man A and man B. One will destroy the planet (terrible man A), one will not (terrible man B) -- and we acknowledge this fact, say fact "X."
Given X, who do you want to see in charge? (Fully acknowledging it's still a bad choice indeed.)
If it's the latter (B), then the next question is: what if I sit out, or vote for someone besides the two terrible men?
If the answer turns out to be: it helps man A, what then? Do we change our mind and vote directly for man B? If not, and given we accept X, how can we live with this choice? Is it not saying that doing the "right thing" is a greater priority than human existence?
I think the problem with the people on this thread is that they don't accept X. But that's exactly what I want to discuss, because I think there's overwhelming evidence supporting it, which comes directly from science.
_______
That's logic. If the premises aren't accepted, my conclusion is wrong. So far as I know, however, there hasn't been a very cogent argument against the premises.
So if we care about what we profess to care about -- whether it's rape, or the DNC, or climate change, or any progressive policy, the logic is quite clear.
For those who don't care about these things, or believe the opposite, the logical thing is to vote for Trump.
I'm not talking about voting for a pure man versus an impure man. I'm trying to put myself in the shoes of someone with a real issue that will be voted on. That affects them. How do they vote? Street, I don't care about winning points, listen - how do they vote, and why? I mean something central : Again, look at the last ten SCOTUS cases. You talk like someone who's never had to make a hard choice. I can agree with you all day not to vote for Biden. We have that luxury.
What does being an australian with a chinese background have to do with US elections - do we mean the same thing by 'skin-in-the-game'? The world isn't a moral parchesi game, guy. If you're mad, and find yourself spontanteously rilling out 'cunts,' justifying it because youre part chinese (?) then own that and do that, don't tie it into other countries politics, Be mad and who you are.
Idk you're the one who brought up personal stakes, like it mattered or something.
Quoting csalisbury
If that hypothetical issue is so overwhelmingly important to you (or whoever), over and above everything else, then vote for the candidate you think will get it passed, if that item even exists among any of the existing policy platforms. If that's Biden then so be it. I don't know what specific policies bear on you. I don't know how how you weigh the importance of said policy or policies against everything else. But here's what I do know: that electoral politics in the US are largely a sham (again, not bluster - quite literally and empirically, if you're just an average US citizen, the chances of your policy preferences having any influence on legislation are (1) practically nil [PDF]; (2) actually fucking nothing [PDF]) and that the illusion of you making a difference by means of voting is the most powerful bulwark to you actually being able to make a difference.
In the meantime, voting only functions to legitimate a broken system that will fuck you in every other way, if not that one or two ways that are offered like stale pieces of meat to offset the rest of the rottenness.
And let's not talk about Australian idealism. Our current government is a US lapdog which is doing everything they can to ape American policy and gut any semblance of democracy we have left.
It's a pretty straightforward thing - why are you getting so angry?
ok, gnight
I'm not trying to shame you into anything. Your overwhelming negativism is the price you are paying for being alive.
Pay it if you must.
Take your fingers out of your ears, Prothero.
The message is there...and is being articulated. The reason you are not hearing it is because you are refusing to hear it.
Thryv, Inc. v. Click-To-Call Technologies, LP 7-2
Barton v. Barr 5-4
County of Maui, Hawaii v. Hawaii Wildlife Fund 6-3
Romag Fasteners v. Fossil 9-0
Maine Community Health Options v. United States 8-1
Georgia v. Public.Resource.Org Inc. 5-4
New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York, New York 6-3
Kelly v. United States 9-0
United States v. Sineneng-Smith 9-0
Lucky Brand Dungarees v. Marcel Fashion Group 9-0
From here, this term there have been:
13 x 9-0
4 x 8-1
4 x 7-2
4 x 6-3
5 x 5-4
If Biden is elected and starts gassing people, my qualified support of the court argument will look silly, I grant that. I will even send you a $100 amazon gift card as penance.
Yes, the Dems fucked over the best candidate (for a second time) and nominated the worst. If they were planning to lose the election by alienating as many supporters as possible, they couldn't have done a better job. And yet not voting Dem is still understandably a very difficult step for many progressives to take. Absolute shit show. Of course, the Dem leadership will just sleepwalk into the election pretending everything's fine like they did with Hillary.
Anyone who think there is nothing at stake...is probably not old enough; intelligent enough; or sane enough to be voting.
THERE MOST ASSUREDLY IS LOTS AT STAKE.
The Bernie Sanders people helped elect Trump...
...and are doing their best to see that Trump gets re-elected.
The Trump supporters are mostly ignorant savages.
The Sanders people who are not willing to get on-board with Biden...are even worse. .
Biden stated unequivocally that the person he will select as his vice-president will be a woman...and will be qualified to step into the job starting from day one of the new administration.
Stacey Abrams is not in any way qualified to do that.
There is no way he will select her. She is not exerting any pressure...she is simply satisfying some need she has.
Do the concentration camps on your Southern border set up by Obama and by extension, Biden, count? No gassing just yet, of course, but hey, with COVID doing the job of killing the wretched and the brown housed in them, who needs gas?
But look - I'm not denying that there are reasons to vote for Biden. Just as there are reasons to vote for Trump, or third-party candidates, or whatever. I'm just saying, that the smug ease with which those equating not voting for Biden with Trump supporters and somehow responsible for his victory, is, well, shit, and peddled by shit people.
ANYONE who helps Trump get re-elected, which includes almost all of the childishly disappointed Sanders people who are not voting or who will vote third party...are reprehensible for the re-election should it happen.
It is totally appropriate for anyone with a brain to equate "not voting for Biden" with Trump supporters. People "not voting for Biden" are the kind of people who, at least in part, are responsible for his victory in 2016...and will, at least in part, be responsible for Trump's re-election in 2020 should that happen.
The shit you speak of...are the people who would help Trump...not the people warning against doing so.
A lot of folks are still - after 2016's swing state turnout debacle - missing the forest for the trees ... :roll:
Anyway, my short list for Biden's VP contains these five prospects (2 Black Women, 2 White Women, 1 Hispanic Woman - 3 midwesterners & 2 southerners), any of which I believe would energize the Biden 2020 campaign and mobilize Democratic, Independent & (some) Republican women to vote this fall in record numbers like 2018.
[i]Rep. Val Demings, D-FL
Gov. Gretchen Witmer, D-MI
Rep. Veronica Escobar, D-TX
[s]Sen. Amy Klobuchar, D-MN[/s]
FLOTUS Michelle Obama, D-IL[/i]
Yes, indeed!
Quoting 180 Proof
Good list...any of whom would be vastly superior to Pence being a Big Mac away from taking the reins.
I know there is lots of blow back to mentioning Condoleezza Rice and Kamela Harris...but they still are high on my list.
... or rather Susan Rice. :wink:
:snicker:
Oh, shit. My bad.
I have twisted up those two so often, by now I should be getting it correct.
Thanks, 180.
(Although, even Condoleezza would be okay with me.)
I don't believe there will be a meaningful difference between Biden and Trump in environmental issues.
You've confused me with someone else or not read my posts on voting in 3-4 relevant threads ...
e.g.
Quoting 180 Proof
Quoting 180 Proof
And voting third party isn't a waste either. We have a Partij voor de Dieren (Party for Animals) and when they started it was a single issue party. Once they got a seat, all of a sudden every mainstream party had something to say about animal rights. That single issue party evolved (green deals, circular economy etc.) and is still around.
Voting against someone just seems like such a fucking waste...
The American voting system has devolved into voting for the lesser evil, at least for major elections.
There's this Zizek joke about a Slovenian farmer who is given two wishes by a magic fairy. He tells the fairy that his first wish is that his neighbour's cow drops dead. The fairy grants the wish and says, "Ok, what next? You have one more wish". The farmer says, "now I want my cow to drop dead". The fairy says, "well, ok, but why such a weird wish?" The farmer shoots her a contemptuous look and says, "so, if my neighbor comes to me for milk, I don't have to give him any!"
=American politics.
'Lesser-evil voting' (in close, competitive, elections) is the only option when subject to a schlerotic, ossified, colluding duopoly such as the current U.S. two-party system. :shade:
Quoting Baden
:clap: :sweat: Yeah, I love that joke (a slightly different version); perfectly apt - which I'm sure I've also posted it elsewhere. :up:
What I love is how it's every fucking election anymore. You have to vote for the lesser evil OR ELSE. Don't dare vote third party.
What that tells me is that the those in favor of the lesser evil have no intention in changing the status quo.
Hobson's choice. :shade:
In the American context, with respect to safe state voters (who deliberately or inadvertantly fail to vote for 3rd party candidates), yeah I agree.
Yeah, the other version is the one I think I first heard but then I forgot it and could only find this one online. Anyway, gotta love the Z. :wink:
Where there are multiple enduring parties, there is no significant question being decided by vote.
Yes, I'm in agreement here. In my heart of hearts, I am happy with things being forced to their crisis. In my conscience of consciences, I feel like I'm able to feel that in my heart of hearts only because I've never been all that happy or successful in the old status quo, and I feel uncomfortable following my gut-feeling here. I think the the question of whether to vote for 'the lesser of two evils' in this particular election is partially a referendum on whether that way of thinking even makes sense anymore, on its own terms, even if you've always disagreed with it on principle. I do think the answer is that doesn't, and I think I barged into this thread not having seen the types of posts @StreetlightX was responding to, which are frustrating (sorry @Frank Apisa, I can't buy what you're selling). I do still object to the transposition of manichaean-framing-in-outrageous-terms from one level to another. I'm not saying we should suppress anger, I think anger is often good and useful, but there's a kind of trench-warfare bitterness and frothing that hurts everyone involved, to no good purpose.
No problem, C. We disagree on this issue...and disagree strongly.
Baden is all wet on this...as are all the Sanders supporters who, in states that matter, will not vote or will vote third party.
But that is the nature of our system. And if Trump is re-elected, I guess those people will consider it a victory of some kind. "We showed them!" will be their triumphal hymn.
This next election will NOT be one of choice between two evils. Joe Biden is not evil in any sense of the word...and Donald Trump is a pervasive, unrelenting, frothing evil from the depths of depravity. Trump is a man doing more damage to our Republic and the institutions that allow it to flourish than any of our enemies have ever managed.
Do what you will...and live with the consequences, my friend.
Neither side is about being your brother's keeper. Though the Democrats look better on paper. It's just about the prestige of victory. Americans' general narcissistic attitudes won't change.
And they don't want to change. They find the idea of taking care of each other naive and even somehow "unscientific." Biden can't unite the country; he's just another corporate Democrat.
The working class doesn't win. We may live longer, as Trump may tell us coal is food, but we'll live our lives on our own. Celebrities' wares will continue to grow exponentially cheaper, as will corporations', and we'll all be told the elites' lives of luxury are a reflection of ourselves while we live paycheck to paycheck. And I'm supposed to vote for this, because otherwise Trump and everything that entails.
I just think you're all screwy. If you enjoy the kool aid, though, by all means drink up. This country has a much deeper problem than any president, besides Bernie, could have solved.
I'm not looking forward to Trump or being told "crisis averted" when the crisis is staring me in the eye.
So, Trump is Darth Vadar and Biden is what? A senile Yoda??
Trump is a danger to our Republic...and has caused our Republic more damage than all of its foreign enemies through the years...mostly because the damage he is causing emanates from the Oval Office. Perhaps you cannot see that, but it is so.
As for Biden...he is a life-long public servant who has done things that I love; things that I like; and some things that I dislike...a lot.
But he is a decent human being...a man of empathy and intelligence.
Yeah, he has lost a step or two from his prime. So have I. But even with that step or two of loss...he will be a MUCH better leader for our nation than Trump.
Those who would rather stay home than vote for him should stay home; those who would rather vote for a third party candidate than vote for him should vote for a third party candidate; those who would vote for Trump's re-election should vote for Trump.
We will all live with the consequences.
Well, I guess I could live with senile creepy Yoda as long as he is given constant access to a teleprompter and stays away from my sister. Anyhow, Trump is getting worse daily, that's inarguable. And not just him but his whole shitty family.
Agreed!
I live in a safe Biden state...New Jersey. I've even considered staying home if he chooses Stacey Abrams for the second spot. She is totally unprepared for the job. (I am confident he won't do that!) I have no idea why anyone is touting her. My feelings are that he should choose a woman...preferably a woman of color. There are several women that I think are much closer to being ready to take over immediately. Kamala Harris, Susan Rice, Condoleezza Rice (!)...come immediately to mind.(CR would give the Republicans something to think about.) My preference is for Harris. My guess is Biden will probably be taking the high road with Trump rather than wallowing in the cesspool with him...and Harris looks like she could take over the dirty work with no trouble. She could kick Trump in the balls three times a day and six on Sunday.
Quoting Baden
Even though I'm an old sk0ol Trekkie ... to my geek mind, I'd say tRump is the "Death Star" and Biden is "R2D2" because that lil rust bucket carries secret plans key to helping the rebellion destroy the "planet-killer". :mask::victory:
I have a problem with anthropomorphizing "the Dems". Biden is the nominee because that's where the process led. Was there something unfair about the process that you'd like to have changed, or is it just that you are unhappy with the result of the process?
This is true.
So, I think in the meantime I agree with it being better to vote for Biden next fall, but...
What then? I'm afraid that for too many Americans "not Trump" is the goal and once they have that everything is back to the corporate stranglehold on politics. What's the game plan in the long run? Aside from the obvious and just moving en masse to the Netherlands.
I honestly don't like the man's attitude toward public intelligence.
Either way, I'm not American.
I don't care if their own stupidity causes the country to fallout.
I think Biden will be a problem for them, and I'm happy either way(maybe they'll pull of a Trump victory and keep pushing right).
(Lot's of stupidity going on in America - even the most loyal friends are turning away).
What exactly do you want from the politicians we elect, Benkei?
Do you (we) want them to do what the people want?
That seems to be the demand I hear most often.
How in hell can any human possibly do what the American people want?
How can anyone even think that is possible?
Could you...if given free rein? Suppose you were elected DICTATOR for life...could you "do what the American people want?"
I certainly couldn't! I cannot even imagine anyone who could.
Roughly half the people in America want something that is almost diametrically opposed, and irreconcilable, with what the other half wants!
(By the way: I doubt anyone, anywhere...could get the politicians of their nation to do what "the people" of their nation "want."
Wants are not needs and unless needs are met first there is no want. There is death.
States do/did address some of the diversity/polarity of desire. You can dress like a clown, act like a dog, and speak ill of anything and everything that was once important in a state that has, and I don't want to name any, certain political/social views as widespread and normal. If you don't like it, you can move to another state. Maybe in this state you are expected to dress well, behave well, speak politely, and honor spirituality/Godly pursuits. Both societies being ingrained and widespread enough where each is the respective norm and those outside of it will not be liked or shunned. And so you can move to a different state more accommodating to whatever society is ideal to you.
Naturally the laws are the same. Anyone can live anywhere and be afforded equal opportunity. But shouldn't expect that localized society to change to accommodate their desires when there are other locations that can.
The revolutionary war was a mistake; taking power from an apt government, and giving it to a young, inexperienced one(forgetting how much money was wasted and how much world control was lost to stay on topic).
Had the revolutionary war not happened, and America belonged to England, all things would be much different today; we wouldn't have enslaved Africans, a lot of unecessary wars wouldn't have happened, propaganda outlets like CNN wouldn't exist.
(like the film Alien, the children killed the good mother and ran a mess).
Unfortunately it did happen...
The American Government is still far from mature and without losing themselves in political egoism, or socially-accepted corruption by propping up Mr Trump, they are actually fixing some problems.
I'd prefer a different leader who's apt in the same sort of policy.
As said, though I don't care about American politics, Biden will be a problem for them.
He is an image and policy much like the previous, young minded leaders.
America doesn't want war with Russia, it'a a stupid war. Trump tries to avert this war and struggles under his people's perversity.
They don't really want war with any super power, but Biden's luck is likely drawing both Russia and China.
I trust, and advise you to, when Trump says 'China is America's enemy', and that Biden's pally attitude is dangerous.
If they could remove Russia from the equation, is that not a good thing? Is the democratic idealogy too dangerous?
Biden's latest joke is 'reverse all that Trump's done' - followed by immaturity - 'his coronovirus policies were bad - ALL OF IT'S BAD'.
So America lost my loyalty, it's too stupid. I even snicker at the fact Biden may get elected and the whole country falls out. If Trump gets another term, I'll perhaps show some interest. I'm bored of this immaturity.
Foreword
What's good about Biden's policies?
What's wrong about Trump(other than funny looks)?
It's not the man you want in charge, it's the policy. Why would you vote Biden?
Okay.
So...so let's change the question from "if elected DICTATOR for life, do you think you could do what the American people WANT" to "if elected DICTATOR for life...do you think you could do what the American people NEED?"
In fact, do you think you could even determine what their "needs" are...without asking?
And do you suppose there would be a huge difference between what our fractured society deems to be "needs" and what it deems to be "wants?"
My point was that politicians are in a near impossible position.
Do you disagree?
And I don't know what I've said that makes you attribute a children's concept of politics to me where politicians do what I say. Bit of a strawman right there. I get you're old and you think I'm young but give me a break.
It's not about politicians doing what I want, it's about having decent representation on my behalf by those who I'd vote for. So that means a system with meaningful choices and not
Option a:
laissez-faire capitalism, minimum government, corporate interest and
Option b:
corporate capitalism, technocratic "let's not get any shit done because the status quo needs to be protected", corporate interest
as the only two available turd sandwiches.
Surely there's some aspect of life in the Netherlands that calls for a revolutionary change.
And yet year after year you roost on the status quo. Why?
I asked a question, Benkei.
What would you do if you were able to DICTATE what could be done?
If you would put that out there, you would see that you would only satisfy about half the people...because half the people would disagree with you about getting intense orgasms each day.
That is the problem politicians face. There is no way to satisfy the electorate.
That is my point.
What the heck are you talking about, Benkei?
You originally said, "So, I think in the meantime I agree with it being better to vote for Biden next fall, but...
What then? I'm afraid that for too many Americans "not Trump" is the goal and once they have that everything is back to the corporate stranglehold on politics. What's the game plan in the long run? Aside from the obvious and just moving en masse to the Netherlands."
I am just trying to find out what you think should happen.
What should the politicians do that will YOU happy?
What is the "long run game plan for America" that YOU see as the proper one...the best one for America or for the world?
You seem to be complaining about what is going on...but what is YOUR solution?
That is all I am trying to do. I have no idea of why you think that question to be "removed from reality" and "useless to entertain."
:nerd: ha! (But please don’t start a meme duel that can have no winner, lol. Now excuse me while i search dankmeme.com...)
What they need? Sure. Life, Liberty, Pursuit of Happiness.
Freedom of speech, and the rest. And the reasonable assurance all of the aforementioned will be protected.
A person is a person. In such a diverse nation especially there is no 'title' or 'nationality' to consider. What someone would 'need' here would be no different than what someone needs anywhere.
Discernment between needs and wants is a non-issue. Not to say there aren't unique, circumstantial needs as far as societies go from country to country. It comes down to reasonable belief someone will either maintain or perhaps even improve the ways that one has become accustomed to. And address grievances. Not much more to it then that. Once the needs are addressed, the wants that are independent of necessity can be focused on. The greater the claims the higher the chance you'll be favorable. Unforrunately or not it pragmatically comes down to ensuring the majority is taken care of and content enough to continue to participate first.
As far as politicians being in an impossible position. Depends on concern and commitment. With none, especially if one has made sufficient amounts of money, they likely will either continue to pursue or at minimum work to keep up appearances they are attempting to, enact the laws and will of their constituency that elected them. If they do however... probably. Not impossible. Just atrociously agonizing. Actually, not entirely. They are likely duly elected representatives who ran on ideas they presumably believed and whatever majority electorate that ran with or voted for them would continue to support and admire them even (or sometimes especially) on failure. Essentially all they have to do is ensure their voting majority is satisfied enough either by action or attempt of action. There is no "king", other than the satisfied and socially/politically active/involved citizen.
There... was that so hard? :grin:
Quoting Benkei
But seriously... Yes, I agree that the Clinton-Obama-Biden status quo has holes so big you could sail a corona cruise ship through it while still getting a tan. That’s why Bernie came within sprinting distance of the nomination, despite the trenches dug in front of him by the DNC. To be speculative, in the USA now there seems to be a battle going on that is on the edge of subconsciousness. A struggle between those that want to continue to ramp up the American Empire, and those that want the USA to be an accountable and functioning world citizen country. Thanks for your mention of the doughnut economic model. At first I thought it was a program of breakfast pastries for all, but there is sound thinking behind it, somewhat akin to the Green New Deal in general. Who knew those ancient Taoists and Buddhists had a clue with that balanced Golden Mean stuff? They didn’t even have the Internet! Must have been a lucky guess, lol.
Which goes back to the idea of the US empire. Any possible limits imposed on Empire-think just simply don’t compute to its adherents. Bigger! Faster! More! Conquer the earth and all its people! It’s Darwinian science people! (At least I imagine it is... the school textbooks ripped out the theory of evolution).
(Oh BTW, I would like to move to the Netherlands. How’s the immigration/refugee policy there for unskilled Americans who like to play loud heavy metal, and think masks are for the weak? :joke: )
To anyone who gives as much grief to politicians as someone like you, I simply ask, "What would you do better...and why the hell aren't you doing it?"
I never get a really decent answer. Mostly the answers show that the person is too lazy to go through the work needed to get to a position of responsibility...let alone actually take responsibility.
I am asking you, Outlander, courteously as possible: What would you do better...and why are you not doing it?
What's the main thing about life in the Netherlands that needs to change?
Not sure if you are an American or not, so this applies to wherever you live:
What would you do better...and why are you not doing it?
Okay...apply it over there.
1. Two questions: Who do you think Biden WILL pick for VP nominee? And who do you WANT as VP?
Personally, I would love to see Elizabeth Warren as VP. At first, I was somewhat bitter about Bernie Sanders not getting the nomination, and I wondered about Warren’s “commitment to the cause”, or whatever. But now viewing in “pragmatic mode”, one imagines that she could provide about as much progressive thinking as Biden could handle, lol. (And as much as the DNC would approve of. She would have to compromise, and seems flexible but firm in her ideas IMHO). As for who Biden will end up picking, he might be leaning toward Kamala Harris. Admittedly, she does provide some balance to Biden, being a younger (though very experienced) black woman on the west coast who might possibly be more of a “team player” who isn’t as difficult to predict (or reign in, lol) as Warren, who seems to generate policy ideas even in her sleep. (But that’s why I like her).
2. Who believes the election process needs a severe overhaul? I do. The whole Electoral College process of “the winner takes all” completely encourages the current two-party system. Coincidence? Hmm... Lol. I’d like to see something like the primary voting method, where once over a certain minimum, the votes are divided proportionally. Not an easy task to reform the election process. And sure to generate at least a dozen different positions on every proposal. (Can’t please everybody. Or anybody, sometimes). But IMHO, it is an overhaul long overdue.
Radical idea: allow multiple candidates from a particular party to run in the general Presidential election. To counteract the likelihood of “splitting the vote”, award the winner of each party all the votes for anyone running in that party. For instance in the upcoming election, both Biden and Sanders would run as Democrats against Trump (and against anyone else who wanted to run as a Republican. And any other parties, too). On a per state level, whoever got more votes would take the state. If Biden won Florida, but Bernie won more states overall, then Bernie Sanders would get Florida and the other “Biden states”.
Now, it would be nice IMHO to combine this radical idea with the above-mentioned Electoral College reform. However, I’m not exactly holding my breath.
3. Casualty calculus. As a theoretical and possibly pragmatic exercise, let us imagine the difference between the actual number of USA corona virus deaths under the Trump administration, and the imagined or estimated number of deaths that would have occurred under the Obama/Biden years, assuming the same general circumstances. Definitely NOT hard proof of anything. But it may give one pause...
4. If I would have known when starting this thread that it would have gotten so contentious and well... political, then I would have discussed something more innocuous. Like global warming. :sweat:
Quoting 0 thru 9
You're not obliged to wear a mask except in public transport and nobody cares about your hobbies. :yum:
Unskilled American? How about your English language skill? It's not in short supply here but tutoring could be a low entry job for most native speakers.
Partly for the reasons you listed, 0...but also because I think the traditional role of the VP nominee is to do some serious ass-kicking while the top of the ticket sticks with the high ground. (Except for Trump, who lives in the sewers.) Kamala can kick ass with the best of 'em. She will make Trump's VP (I suspect it will not be Pence) look like a chump...and will lash out at Trump for all the mistakes he will make.
For now I'm focusing on circular economies. We prove it works, the rest will follow and the planet is saved.
Well, one would be fortunate to live within such a system. I’m envious, totally green jello, lol. I imagine that there is abusive / dysfunctional family dynamic among the US voters. I think loyalty / imprinting / bonding with one’s family, community, and country is instinctual, or almost so. It’s very traumatic to break apart from that, and one generally doesn’t do so for a lark. Few relish being thought of as a traitor or ungrateful or whatever. How does one take control of a sinking ship controlled by armed robotic people? Mutiny on the Titanic Death Star.
Quoting Benkei
Cool! Just made plane reservations... :lol: I don’t speak English, but I speak American very bitchingly! As for a job, I was just kind of hoping to live off of public welfare. (just kidding).
Interesting! Personally, I could live with the choice of Harris. (Though Joe hasn’t called me yet to get my thoughts on the issue.) You think DT will drop Pence as VP? Could be... Who might the GOP VP nominee be then, one wonders? Someone even more obedient? Cuter? A woman to match up strategically with Biden’s choice?
Someone "like me"? Have we met? Lol. I post counterarguments here often for little more reason than to do so. Well.. perhaps to learn more of course. And perhaps to aid others I can relate to.
That said before continuing please, spare no courtesy or manners. Myself and others here would assuredly like to know your truest and deepest essence in engaging opposing views.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KOIFs_SryHI
If you don't support me "then you ain't black." He also refers to the interviewer as "man" 3 times and ends the interview with "see ya later pal." Do you think he'd be addressing a white crowd like this? Particularly a wealthy white crowd? It's just strange to me.
What a silly argument. It's your funeral, too. So you're willing to shoot yourself in the foot because some people online are mean and judgmental? Who cares about that? There's only one thing that matters: are they right? If it's pure name-calling, just ignore them. If they're giving facts and evidence and also being cantankerous, then ignore the latter and look at the facts.
Speaking for myself: I don't think you're reprehensible. I don't think people voting for Trump are evil, I don't think people voting third party are evil, etc. I certainly understand their frustration and wholeheartedly agree that Biden is a very weak candidate indeed. I say that those voting third party or not voting, when their stated goals are the same as mine, are assisting Trump in getting re-elected. I don't think it's evil or reprehensible, I just think it's an easily demonstrable mistake.
The entire argument hinges on what your goals are. The example I always use is climate change. If you profess to care about this issue, then it follows you should vote Biden. Why? Because when you look at the policies of Trump compared to what Biden is proposing or what Obama did, it's clear which is better for the environment. That's not saying much, given Trump's policies, but it's at least "better."
So it follows for other policies as well. I reject that Biden and Trump are the same person with the same policies, and I reject that not voting or voting third party does any good whatsoever to change the DNC -- there's no evidence for that. I also reject the short-term argument, which completely ignores the very small window we have for addressing the climate crisis, and the re-shaping of the judiciary (which will have effects that will be felt for generations).
I've been thinking he might choose a woman. Nikki Haley might make sense...but she may be too smart to take the shot. Republicans are running scared right now.
Trump is nuts, though, and it would not amaze me if he tried to get Ivanka or Jared bumped up. (Yeah, very long shot, but with this guy, anything goes.
Pence may be sacrificed as the guy who screwed the pandemic thing up.
I have been at this Internet posting thing since the late 1990's. We old-timers develop impressions of the cyber selves with whom we interact. If you are not at that point yet, you will be soon...and then you will understand.
Okay! Right now I am trying to find out what YOU would do differently if given the opportunity. You have been finding lots of fault with the politicians...which is the easy part of the issue.
So...sans courtesy and manners...just what the fuck would you do differently if your shaggy ass were able to win an election anywhere at any time?
What I do now. Nothing.
Yes, maybe the climate is impo
I'll be holding my nose too, buddy. Believe me. Same in 2016, same in 2012 and 2008 and 2004, etc. I wanted Bernie and I loathe the DNC and most democrats. If there's one thing I resent the Republicans for, personally, is that they've gone so extreme that they make voting for them impossible. And so we're essentially forced to caucus with Democrats.
Suffice it to say, even given climate change... Well, people are gonna have to be boisterous about Joe.
Because I see right through him. It's our society, like it or not, that needs to change.
In fact, I don't see how an effort to stop climate change is feasible given "human nature." Republicans will line the streets with automatic rifles if we do what it takes. And Biden's not going there.
Like I said before, it's just one dystopia vs. another. It's hard, really hard for me, to cast a vote for anyone I plainly see leading us into the dark. Lots and lots of people think the dark is the light, though. A conscience isn't something most people put stock in.
Actually, when you differentiate between the average understanding of politics and it's true nature there is a huge learning curve. It's the only thing separating humanity from an all out gore fest. The average up and coming young politician doesnt know this and often never does. Nor do some 'experienced' ones. Every position from the lowest city major to the highest office in the land has advisors who do. People who study economics, civics, society, history, behavioral science, and just about everything else who advise and inform what decisions should or should not be made and why.
It's not a purely analytical or judicial thing. That is what I mean when I say I would do nothing.
For fun I'd say I'd naturally include a few mandated courses in philosophy or higher reasoning in education. Or perhaps not. Ignorance is bliss.
I agree...advice from advisors is a must. BUT...one must choose one's advisors...and that is a significant project. (One our current president has made a sewer.)
But a lot of what you said there is conjecture...and rather pessimistic, negative conjecture. I know LOTS of politicians...most on the local level, but I've had a former governor of my state (New Jersey) mention, during a radio interview, some op ed pieces he had read of mine. I've had lengthy conversations with former senator Bill Bradley and the late Senator Frank Lautenberg.
For the most part, they are dedicated people doing their very best to run their communities as efficient as possible...and to make the community and state as pleasant as they can.
But politicians, as I said earlier, have to deal with very diverse, and often polar, perspectives of what the people desire from government. A politician (a mayor or senator, for instance) is not just the mayor or senator for the people who voted for him/her...but is the mayor or senator for ALL the people.
Not an easy job...and the constant disparagement I see sent their way in these forums sickens me. That's why I asked that question.
For the record, very few people have ever tried to answer it with purpose.
Sure, there's been a rightward shift for years. Democrats are now "moderate republicans," and what's called republican is now pure neoliberal with, at least after 2011 and the Tea Party influence, a touch of utter craziness. Its result is this surreal state we're living it with Trump as president.
The two major parties are NOT the same...not at all. There are significant differences.
America has made a rather steady move to the right. Unfortunately, that is not unique in the world right now...many of the industrialized nations have.
The kind of freedom enjoyed in "free nations" tends to lead in that direction. The people become libertarian...and start to think that they should have more and more freedom...forgetting that the thing that got them the freedom they have, is the willingness to give up plenty of "freedom" in the interest of society.
There was a time when the Democratic Party was the party of bigots and the American right wing...and the Republican Party the party of liberals and the left.
Things changed.
The GOP has gone off the rails.With all the respect in the world, to suppose the Democrats are just the same thing in disguise is very, very wrongheaded.
I've never once claimed they were the same. The policies are different, and even if by a small degree, in an otherwise powerful country this makes a large impact.
Okay...I included you and Tim because of the conversation you were having.
It is a dangerous trap to do so...and I think we all ought to remind each other as frequently as possible not to fall into it.
Eh, words are words. Free speech. Lets you know the person is being genuine. Usually. Can imply some sort of intense displeasure if used abnormally which an empath would find upsetting. Not to be unexpected I guess. Politics can bring out the worst in us all. A farcry from other things though..
So apparently the guy has a few "memes" going on (so does Trump, fullblown allegations rather) of 'rapacious' activity or demeanor. Prolonged touching, sniffing hair, I dunno just what I've seen. Not... absolutely incriminating of anything just.. yeah if someone even related to let's pretend I have kids were doing that I'd be like.. yeah could you not do that so much. Lol.
I can see how a white man in a debate with the only other likely choice being another white man saying "you're supposed to vote for me because you're black" can be a bit distasteful. Just imagine if things were reversed. Don't even have to imagine really. Theres places....
At the same time I do recall an instance in a 2nd amendment thread where I wrote a pretty cool, detailed and frankly logically equal reply and you were like "no. That's wrong". And I was just kinda like. Anyway. Moving on. That "I was raised this way, i seen this and so this is right" kind of doctrine can get kind of annoying. Or, have a "chilling effect" or otherwise be counterproductive to philosophical debate. Then again so can a mod using profanity toward someone. I don't get that vibe here though. Hey, at least they don't use sock accounts to post controversial things like most forums.
McConnell is probably one of the few people who might actually give Joe a run for his money, human misery to human misery.
Fuck fuckity fuck fuck 'em both. Pair of cunt white supremacists that deserve each other.
I'm white.
I'm not a colourer in arguments, but I like to be proud of my colour.
'Death to the colourer' is what I have always followed.
Where does my proudness end and supremacy begin?
I don't want too many immigrants - is this white supremacy?
These other race people came looking for refuge from war torn countires; my policy would be to help them, til a future date - where they would be sent back. Is this supremacy or proudness?
Am I to put my trust in these people from foriegn lands and let them live next to me?
Is that smart for a man of my colour?
Is there a chance that they might be black, yellow or brown supremacists, or is this an impossible case?
I want all people, including those of my colour, to grow in strength.
I see nothing but weakness, for white skinned people, by immigration.
You, a man of different colour to me, probably disallow such speech that is pro-white. Why is this? Can we not build ourselves with you?!
Is this more weakness for people my skin colour? We can't be united with you - you don't accept us - you accept individuals.
I think you might be racist against whites.
I was never racist, I showed concern for everyone's skin, but potentially not everyone's western world.
No this is fair enough. Time to ship the immigrants out and leave the US to the native Americans. 300 years is time enough. Off you go.
An individual who differentiates himself from another by a certain characteristic possessed by no effort of his own action should not question where pride ends or even begins but why it is even considered as such in the first place. It most certainly ends when such a trait is used to justify indifference toward someone different by means of another trait of no effort or choice.
Even a hardcore supremacist with at least a modicum of understanding of the Constitition and resulting society would get the benefit it has to what they believe. A smarter person should/would get ahead over someone who is not. If they believe anything they say they do what would be the problem. Per this system, all races or ethnicities would improve dramatically since the smart or decent (though the latter is easily refuted, to my dismay) would become successful, have more resources and freedom, and procreate more while those who do not.. would do so less. Ideally.
The opposition against illegal immigration is easily founded. Simply, it's a rather blatant middle finger toward those who actually respect a given country enough to follow their policy. To people waiting in line for opportunity for a better life who prove they respect the system and culture of the land they're coming to. As well as entire concepts of civility, law and order, and decency. Which I and many people should and do find abhorrent.
Your views are likely derived from protecting a 'status quo' which benefits you. This is fair. So. Others have a right to do so too. Where is the 'capital of the world'? Who is 'the most powerful man in the world'? Exactly.
Short term, it looks like balance of power will return with China emerging as our youngest super power.
[tweet]https://twitter.com/AndrewBatesNC/status/1251585333696835587[/tweet]
Once again with feeling: fuck this racist cumsock of a human being.
However, the West is not big enough for all of us, and there'll likely be power struggles here as the amounts of people from different 'backgrounds' flow into the West. Do I feel that this is dangerous for people of 'certain backgrounds', yes.
I don't like measuring it at all, I'd prefer we were all one; it is not that way...
Biden is not the perfect candidate...and frankly, I doubt the perfect candidate is out there. In the 83 years I've been alive, the "perfect candidate" has not appeared...although there have been some good candidates and good winners.
Biden, no matter his many faults, will be a marked improvement over Trump. But even Mickey Mouse would be a marked improvement over Trump.
https://www.thenation.com/article/politics/joe-biden-tara-reade-allegations/
Biden supporters in a nutshell.
You and I, at 83, can barely remember FDR - who along with Washington and Lincoln top the list IMO.
I'm not so certain Biden will be a huge improvement over Trump. He will certainly be a more traditional president. We will probably have the opportunity to find out. :chin:
I don't think anybody here believes that Biden will be awesome.
But what he can do is abstain from crippling the administration to inaction the way Trump has done it now. That's the thing he can do at least.
Or do you want to have Trump to be in charge when sh*t hits the fan in the South China Sea, China invades Taiwan and a US carrier is attacked or something? Do you think that Trump could dissolve a crisis similar to the Cuban missile crisis? Show cool judgement and lead the nation?
We genuinely have seen him now how he acts during a true and severe crisis. It's not anymore a maybe: he is as bad in leadership as he has shown earlier.
Trump has greatly exceeded our expecations.
We expected him to be very, very bad as president.
We underestimated him.
He has been horrendous.
:lol: :clap:
:smirk:
Quoting Frank Apisa
:up:
How someone who treats the sociopath in office like a cult leader isn't embarrassed to make a joke like this isn't surprising. You don't see the irony, I suppose.
update:
https://theweek.com/speedreads/916926/amy-klobuchar-declined-prosecute-officer-center-george-floyds-death-after-previous-conduct-complaints :eyes:
:lol: Maybe proudness? just not a proud American.
Depends on whether you don't want immigrants because they might be brown, or not.
Quoting remoku
As Streetlight pointed out, this attitude is a bit hypocritical.
If a country accepts refugees (why are they accepting refugees at all i wonder?), is it right for that same country to eject them a few years later on principle alone? What's the main benefit of ejecting them? And how does that reflect on the ethics of the host nation?
Quoting remoku
How do other people put their trust in you at all? How do your neighbors know that you aren't a criminal of some kind?
Quoting remoku
Why would you suggest it might be unintelligent for a white person to condone immigration and accept immigrant/non-white neighbors?
Quoting remoku
Your argument is that non-white immigrants might be too racist to let in. It's ironic because the argument apparently contains the thing it condemns (racism). Specifically, you're suggesting we generalize brown people as racists by shutting down immigration for brown people.
Quoting remoku
Can you explain this at all though?
What do you mean?
Are white people going to lose jobs? (to be fair, we're capitalist, and nobody deserves a job just because they're white) competent and productive whites have nothing to fear). You're a competent and productive white, right?
Are you afraid of interracial marriage? Are you referring to some kind of dilution of the white gene pool? (handsome male whites like yourself will do just fine; have no fear!).
Are the immigrants going to come and use up all of our limited welfare? (the numbers actually show that cheap immigrant labor from Mexico adds huge value to the American economy, in addition to being essential for some industries like seasonal harvesting on farms).
You say that you "see nothing but weakness, for white skinned people, by immigration", but how? Do you actually see anything at all outside of something emotional?
Quoting remoku
What?
Quoting remoku
And if some people are actually racist against whites, would that justify racism against non-whites?
Quoting remoku
I'm willing to accept that you're not racist, but when you make statements like "but potentially not everyone's western world", which are poorly worded and ill defined, my mind goes-a-wandering...
What do you mean not everyone's western world? Do you mean, like, the west should only allow whites to immigrate? Are you a supporter of "ethno-states" and segregation along ethnic lines?
P.S:
You might feel rather attacked by this post. Don't be (I only really care about the ideas)... The half-baked ideas you have driveled into the thread are entry level alt-right musings, and while I don't blame you for coming to them, you need to drop the emotion and the pretense. You're likely 20 or under, and to be frank you don't know very much about the way the world works. I can promise you it's more complex than whatever your old-school isolationist or you-tube philosophy espouses. And I'm willing to prove it for you; all we must do is get into the nitty gritty of the original claims that were made (like your claims about the risks of brown supremacy, the weakness for whites that immigration causes, sources of trust for neighbors, etc...)...
November 3, 2020 national referendum on the
[b]• worst public health crisis since 1918
• worst unemployment crisis since 1929
• worst social unrest since 1968[/b]
and in the wake of the largest voter turnout - for 2018 midterm elections against the incumbent party - since 1914.
This National Review article augurs that pro-GOP rightwing press is publicly having a 'Come to 180 Proof Moment' which tRump campaign, NRSC & RNC operatives have been privately chattering about the last several months.
:mask:
update:
George F. Will rallying "Never Trumper" GOP & right-leaning Independent voters.
Until Trump "postpones" the election... :joke:
"Joe Biden said Monday that police under attack in the line of duty should shoot their assailants “in the leg instead of the heart” as a way to avert the killing of civilians."
Finally, some real leadership :heart:
Get Trump out of office. Russia should only be considered for readmission after putin is 6 feet under (put-in the ground).
https://thebulletin.org/doomsday-clock/
Maybe as a start he can offer to repeal his 'tough of crime' bills that led to a militarized police and the mass incarceration of black people that directly fed into what's happening right now? I dunno, what else is on the table from this ex-segregationist?
I am not sure supporting defunding the police is going to win relevant votes. Bidens team presumably regards PoC as a captive voting block. He doesn't think he needs to do work to get those votes, and he may very well be right about that.
"Defund the police" just isn't a good slogan to get behind if you want to get the votes of middle aged white people.
That means not everything that happens is a police problem. We should have healthcare workers, social workers and other civil servants work more closely with the police and look much closer at prevention of crime and how to do that. If you send the police out for every problem, it's like taking a hammer out for every job... Even when you sometimes need a screwdriver or wrench.
I believe doing this will automatically mean police time and effort will be used much more effectively and efficiently, lead to lower crime in our communities and better living circumstances for everyone.
Acceptable enough for the sensibilities of those poor white middle aged couples?
Biden needs independents. So, it doesn't matter how nuanced his position is, the GOP attack line will be "Crazy leftie Biden wants to defund the police!" And his campaign knows that, so not going to happen.
Politics... :vomit:
I'm looking forward to the debates between the two of them.
The DNC made it quite clear, after consolidating around Biden, that they'd rather lose the election than lose their party to Sanders. I'm hoping for the sake of the country that Biden still prevails, but it should become clearer and clearer what a stupid decision that was.
I think Val Deming can provide necessary guidance to Sleepy Joe. :cool:
Update:
Rep. Karen Bass, D-CA
Remember that Joe Sixpack isn't like Daan, the Heineken drinker, from your country.
Biden's objective now is to get those never-Trumper Republicans, who after voting for Donald (in their disgust of Hillary) now feel they are actually never-Trumpers or born again never-Trumpers. But they are still Republicans, so I guess Joe won't go "full Bernie/AOC".
Is Karen Bass considered a serious contender now (I haven't really been following the VP speculation very closely)? She's the best one I've heard floated yet, by a pretty wide margin. Get out of here with this Amy Klobuchar bullshit... but Karen Bass? Hell yes. She's the real deal, at least so far as I can tell.
Unfortunately this isn’t something Biden could personally make happen, unlike most of the rest of your list. That’s something that will take both houses of congress to accomplish.
Surely this is for lack of trying? Does a broken clock not happen to coincide with a serviceable clock on occasion?
He may not have Trump's charisma, but he seems pretty put together.
Here with an expert opinion is Professor Frink and his latest invention, the Election-Tron 3000.
“According to my calculations using the ET3000, the VP pick for Joe Biden will be.... (drumroll please)... Bernice Sanders?!?! Why you worthless hunk of junk! Back to the drawing board”. :nerd:
Sen. Kamala Harris D-CA ???
• not progressive or liberal
• not an experienced executive or legistlator
• not a midwesterner or southerner
WTF :vomit:
< swallows hard >
Biden-Harris 2020 :mask:
I don't know much about her, I confess. But I understand she's a lawyer, and of course we need more lawyers in high government positions.
Irony, you know. I think we make lousy politicians, being trained to represent usually one client at a time, rather than groups with diverse interests.
The black-haired lady was born in Morocco. But there are more black people in Amsterdam than Morrocans. So that's pretty weird.
I think the idea of voting for a black person, regardless of policy, is experienced by many white people as progressive in itself.
"Feeling good" about voting for a black politician is like "feeling good" about buying coffee in "green, or compostable, cups" from Starbucks - in itself it's an irrelevant, onanistic, bourgeois gesture. Effective gender, ethnic and worker power-sharing across the leadership of governments at all levels and 'Fortune 1000' corporate boards and executive managements rather than dopamine-kicks from token voting would be relevant (and a first step in a substantially progressive direction).
Honestly this man revulses me more than Trump. At least Trump is clear that he is a degenerate ratfuck and revels in it. This guy is a degenerate ratfuck and pretends not to be.
That's such a good point.
Thank you. We can be otherwise useful, though, in drafting legislation and assessing its legality. But even as administrators we're notoriously inept; can't even run our own damn firms and so must hire office administrators.
The top 10% can block legislation they don't want effectively and have more than double the likelihood of having laws passed they do want.
This is the same regardless of which party is in power. So you can take your belligerent tone elsewhere and maybe learn something from people who don't have a horse in the US race and therefore see the system for what it is. An oligarchy.
But you know this of course because you've actually read the Princeton study proving it instead of just being American and eligible to vote thinking that makes you qualified to have an informed opinion on the matter.
I am not "you-all." I don't care for Biden. But I am not of an opinion that if I can't get what I want right fucking now, then let the world burn and I'll roast the marshmallows. Unlike X, to me the lives of 1,000 children are not a trifle.
He mentioned efforts to strengthen unions and the working class, which doesn't sound too corporate-friendly.
Were you too young when there was Bush senior, Reagan or Carter?
Welcome to the Philosophy Fprum of 2020's with your moderator of the year, Streetlight X.
The Democrats say they want a humble America
You're all so fucked lol.
Well now that you mention it, yes, Biden absolutely did lock children in cages and very likely destroyed tens or hundreds of thousands of families with his '94 crime bill which helped the US become the prison state that it is. He probably hasn't eaten a baby but it probably did cross his mind to take a bite while he was sniffing the hair of all those young girls he liked to heavy pet on camera.
"Pictures of children behind chain-link fencing were captured at a site in McAllen, Texas, that had been converted from a warehouse to an immigrant-detention facility in 2014. Social media users who defended Trump’s immigration policies also shared a 2014 photograph of Obama’s Homeland Security Secretary, Jeh Johnson, touring a facility in Nogales, Arizona, in 2014, in which the fencing could be seen surrounding migrants there as well. That picture was taken during a spike in the number of unaccompanied children fleeing violence in Central American countries."
"Thomas Homan (who was director of removal operations at ICE under President Obama). ... said during a June 21, 2019, panel discussion hosted by the anti-immigration advocacy group Center for Immigration Studies that “‘The kids are being [housed] in the same facility built under the Obama administration. If you want to call them cages, call them cages. But if the left wants to call them cages and the Democrats want to call them cages, then they have to accept the fact that they were built and funded in FY 2015.”
This is a fun game. Name some other acts of ethical and political depravity and there's no doubt we can find it in Biden's illustrious career of fucking people over.
It’s currently Trump’s America. :chin:
https://youtu.be/5Z8nV10dFcw
"Donald Trump knew. He lied to us for months. And while a deadly disease ripped through our nation, he failed to do his job - on purpose. It was a life or death betrayal of the American people."
~next POTUS, former VP Joe Biden, 9.9.20
:victory: :mask:
The first article is a summary of Biden's record, the second article is by the same author on why voting for Biden is nevertheless necessary to take out Trump.
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2020/03/democrats-you-really-do-not-want-to-nominate-joe-biden
https://www.currentaffairs.org/2020/08/an-ineffectual-biden-presidency-is-better-for-the-left-than-an-actively-authoritarian-trump-presidency
Whoa, you should go in to the consulting biz!
There are literally videos linked to in the article with Biden in his own words confirming the article's claims. And you're shouting 'fake news'. You are the exact mirror image of the Trumpers.
It seems reasonable to question some of Biden's decisions, or any politician's decisions. If anyone wishes to that on a philosophy forum it would be even more reasonable to start a thread which challenges one particular decision in some careful detail.
Don't like his Iraq war vote? Ok, let's go in to that step by step.
I visited downtown Atlanta a few days ago to eat lunch with my son at Tech, and traveling from my humble abode outside the perimeter, it's as if I left the country I lived in and entered another. And to be clear, I've lived here since I was born and have worked downtown and roamed there too many times to count. Maybe it's changed for the worse or maybe I've forgotten, but it was disgraceful, with the garbage literally overflowing unemptied garbage cans onto the street and abundant loitering. The bright yellow Ferrari parked on the street didn't make much sense, or maybe it did.
That is the dumpster fire shit-show and it needs to be addressed. Trump isn't the one to do it. The best he can do is scare me that it's coming my way and protect my right to defend myself against it, all the while further marginalizing those I'm being protected from. And let's not pretend Biden will do any better.
Quite frankly nobody should be giving two shits about Biden's personality just as Trump's personality is totally besides the point. The real politik right wingers understand this perfectly. Mitch played you all, among others, while Trump takes the heat because he's dumbass. Welcome to a Conservative justice system with babies like Amy Coney Barrett playing at being a supreme court judge. I hope she chokes on her imposter syndrome.
Well, that gives a short timetable for the protests against the Biden administration to begin. The "Well, at least he isn't Trump" attitude will wear off quite quickly. I think that will happen in the fall of 2021. If we still have the corona virus then as we have now, it's a sure thing.
I didn't know this about Joe and I think it's pretty funny some of the best ads are being made by Conservatives.
Indeed.
*stir*
What if Joe is basically a decent human being and the influence of how a system works (or actually doesn't) is even bigger than we think?
Biden is a fairly run-of-the-mill hawkish conservative. Not my cup of tea. I'd still rather tea over urine though.
Yes, Biden, Bush, Obama et al have been produced to believe their image is who they are. Even they think they're decent human beings. There's no lacuna there; it's ideology all the way down. Kim, on the other hand, at least knows he's an evil bastard.
Calm down.
Limitations on campaign funding (eg. bribes) and lobbyist activity (eg. bribes) would be a good next step. Currently, the US system has fuck all to do with democracy, where policies that 100% of people want have only 35% of being enacted, or conversely where near 99% of people don't want something, there's a 35% chance of it happening anyway. Whereas if something is wanted by 100% of the 1%, there's about 70% of it happening, where is 100% of the 1% don't want something there's a 100% of it not happening.
Edit: and no, I did not make those figures up.
We had earlier a similar system as in the US. Boy, did it suck.
Then they changed it to a system that if on the first vote nobody gets a majority of the votes, the candidate wins. If not, then there is a second round (and voting) with the two candidates that got the most votes. I think it works well in a multi-party system.
Then one improvement is could be that the early votes would be already counted. Here it goes that once the voting stations close, then at eight o'clock PM they declare the results of the pre-election votes and then start dropping the votes from the election day results.
Now it seems that it's quite a mess in the US.
Are you able to vote for your leader? Here in Canada the party leader is nominated by the party and thus Canadians are unable to vote for the prime minister. The American system is to me far superior on those grounds.
The President still has power, he or she isn't a decorative official. The President is elected every six years and can be re-elected once. (We learned that after President Kekkonen, president from 1956 to 1982, when he was forced out because of ailing health. But hey, he was the favorite of the Soviets!)
(Notice how drunk they all look.)
Usually the Prime Minister is the leader party that wins the elections and is able to form a coalition of political parties to the administrations. It's very rare that the prime minister would be from a party that isn't the largest one.
But you were American? Or are you dual citizen?
Oh you have a president and prime minister. Thanks for the explainer.
Yes, I am a dual citizen, thanks to official multiculturalism.
I no longer vote in Canadian elections because I do not like proportional representation—coalition and minority governments and all that. I find my vote means very little in the grand scheme of things,
:up:
I despise this but I think it's exactly right.
What ranked choice voting ensures is that candidates, that a large portion of voters consider total shit bags, won't stand a chance thereby significantly raising the legitimacy of whoever gets elected.
Yes, there's a chance someone with a plurality of primary votes doesn't win the election but that's neither here nor there, because the converse in the current system is that a person with a plurality of votes wins whereas we know that more than 50% of voters doesn't want that candidate. (Even worse, we've seen Trump and Bush win without even reaching a plurality of votes). Without additional information, the cautionary principle means we should assume more than 50% of voters voted against the candidate with the plurality of votes. By distributing the secondary votes, we obtain information that is otherwise unavailable making the end result more informed as well. This illustrates as well that with ranked choice voting a vote retains value, even if your primary choice loses.
For politicians to win secondary or even tertiary votes, they will have to consider to a larger extent what the greatest number of people want instead of what enough people want. That effect is assumed to lower the level of polarisation.
Quoting tim wood
That only makes sense if you don't have ranked choice voting. And even so, if a populist movement would win a majority of the votes it's fucking elitist to then say "but it's wrong". That's rather the point of democracy that at some point if enough people want something it should happen. It's up to policy makers and judges to keep whatever populist idea has gripped the country within the boundaries of the constitution and international treaties.
Quoting tim wood
I have no clue on what you base this optimism on. You've already seen it fail in 2016 and yet you still think it works? Party politics prevents electors to make ethical choices.
Oh would you look at that Biden re-hired the same shitty agri fuckstick that helped disillusion the farmers to begin with to vote for Trump.
Guess he's banking on a Trump reelection on 2024.
Which to be fair is a great election strategy. Keep the opposition as wannabe fascists, and hold the electorate hostage so that the choice is between batshit crazies or corporatist scum like Biden. Honestly hope this man drops dead during his term.
Yep, back to business as usual.
Voter: Hi there, I'd like some representative democracy please.
System: So sorry, we don't have that this century. We do have plenty of other choices though. For example, you can have a corporate plutocracy or how about a nice cryptofascist oligarchy?
Voter:... Or?
System: Or you can fuck off and die. Have a nice day!
I'd like him to drop dead painfully. More adjectives?
Some more than others certainly - especially those in power responsible for making the world a worse place, like Obama. And you did call me a racist and you're still a ****** for it.
Biden himself will be picking his AG soon, so I suspect this investigation will vanish.
Well gee Biden being a cynical shit of a politician with zero principles wow what a surprise. Butt's reward for dropping out early I guess. Also an early grooming maneuver - teach the inexperienced little suckup the ways of neoliberal capitalist dominance then play him for pres again a few years down the line, future-proof corporate dominance of the democratic party for decades to come. For all those political incompetants who fantasized about 'pulling Biden to the left': this is it, this is the 'left' you get, some pliable whitebread shit ready to be molded in their image.
There is a strange dialectic there for sure. Not unlike his choice of VP who previously called him out as a segregationist sympathizer. Or when he himself was chosen as a running mate after describing Obama as "the first mainstream African-American [candidate] who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy". Maybe they choose people who they think will make up for something they themselves are lacking.
Capitalists lining up to get rich off Biden corruption.
I hope to be pleasantly surprised, but I'm not holding my breath.
https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-joint-resolution/14/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22hj+res+14%22%5D%7D&r=1&s=1
Not hanging around are they?
Back into outer space where they came from..
So the true purpose/meaning of America is to have an electoral college? I'm curious as to how you would rationalize that America evaporates with the electoral college...
Do you mean to say that since the Democrats would foreseeably win the next few election cycles, the sky would fall? Are you just making a partisan quip with no supporting argument or premise?
Do you understand why the electoral college was established?
Yes.
For or against?
Both.
It is my view that this is a precursor of things to come.
The Electoral College is a pivotal part of the Madisonian model, which shouldn’t be altered on some whim, apparently, because the development of mass media and the internet makes it easy to research the candidates...this from the party that arguably controls most mass media and the internet.
I prefer the electoral college simply because no one region contains the absolute majority of electoral votes required to elect a president.
They’re not going to succeed and they know it. It’s all virtual signalling.
It’s been tried many times before. But times are strange.
Lauding reason as the operating principle, and the individual as the final end, enshrined a practical philosophy that objectified human society. Thus the unfeeling philosopher king institutes a mechanical view of the human and mechanises social relations. Man the cog in the social machine. Hence the production line, the mass exploitation of labour, slavery, the concentration camp all share a philosophical source and arise together. Not that there was not unpleasantness before, but dispassionate unpleasantness has no limit; it is never exhausted or sated.
And this is the inheritance of the US from Europe and Britain in particular. Man as object is valued solely by the measure of wealth and power, and those with none have no value. So the US does not waste much money preserving the lives of the poor, with health services and welfare - the minimum to keep 'them' from organised riot. It is a miserable philosophy and a miserable country. The pain has not gone.
Like that the American economy nosedives and everything will be far worse?
But you are already seeing the tell tale signs of how bad it has become.
I ask to people to read the following letter from the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the US Armed Forces:
Memorandum for the Joint Force
At first it might seem just obvious statement among others during these times, but understand that this is the leadership of the US military. So you have here the Military having to say that they are with Joe Biden being their 46th Commander in Chief. And that they above all defend the Constitution and what happened was sedition and insurrection.
In a democracy it's quite unheard of that the Military has to officially acknowledge who is the winner of elections. It really isn't normal, the letter is unprecedented. And not only singed by the Chairman, but all the department heads.
This kind of letter means that they, the military, are obviously contemplating a situation where the enemy is a domestic one.
So there's the wonderful new time the Biden administration is facing.
Murkowski is abandoning the GOP due to Trump and I can see others (Collins) doing this too. Between the House GOP not whipping votes for impeachment and McConnel potentially going along with, or not resisting impeachment, I imagine the GOP could fracture into traditionalists, and the Q Anon believing Trump worshipers. I doubt it though, Mitch will probably lose his spine and try to get a unanimous vote against impeachment. They might not try to block evidence and witnesses again though.
I do think the filibuster will go if the GOP won't vote on a stimulus. However, I doubt much gets done outside of that. I can't see a public health option, large climate change bill, tax increases on the wealthy, or certainly court packing or the Wyoming Rule to make the House and Electoral College more representative to population passing.
The pandemic will get worse before it gets better. Stocks and housing are in a full bubble. Housing prices are massively outstripping rents.
The US really does not need any more unskilled labor, and immigration is obviously massively destabilizing urban housing markets and the entire political system, but I can't see them doing anything to fix it now that the Democrats have marched so far towards open borders to combat Trump, that immigration restrictions are seen as a hate crime. I mean, if the GOP couldn't hold one vote on immigration in two years of total control, why would Dems.
So we will continue to add a large city worth of people who get sucked into an underclass each year. Immigration from the third world also necessarily increases inequality since they are coming with low skills and no assets. It keeps wages low and rents high, hence why neither party will touch it, but it's a major issue they should tackle and never will. You'll never get widespread support for expanding social welfare programs, affirmative action, etc. so long as we are trending towards 25% of the population being foreign born by 2050 and about half either foreign born or with at least one foreign born parent. There will be no cohesion. Plus, it only benefits a tiny minority of people in the developing world (Bangladesh alone could supply more migrants than Europe could absorb), while it's also destabilized politics across the West, which is hurting developing nations.
I commend you, as a self-admitted dinosaur, of being so positive about it where I really see no reason to believe this will be good people. Effective, sure. In protecting special interests and the status quo.
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1994/11/4/clarke-should-retract-statements-pbtbwo-years/
Sick shit.
https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/tucker-carlson-kristen-clarke-doj-civil-rights-division
What? You believe that pseudoscience? Figures.
What principle would that be? The presumption of innocence?
I'm reserving judgment, I just believe you when you say you're sickened when someone says black people are good at stuff.
That’s all she is to you, eh? “some black people”?
She’s the Assistant Attorney General of the Civil Rights division.
Here more of what she wrote:
Do you think it’s OK for the the assistant attorney general of the civil rights division to have held, at any point in their lives, beliefs of racial supremacy?
What?!? Even by your standards that makes no sense.
Quoting NOS4A2
Yup, and back then she was a kid at college. Btw I've now read the letter. She never once argues for black racial supremacy.
Difficult to see this as anything other than more racists jumping to condemn someone put in office because they happen to be black.
https://www.thecrimson.com/article/1994/10/28/blacks-seek-an-end-to-abuse/
The juxtaposition as a reaction to those defending the Bell Curve seems rather obvious to me. Racist theories about white superiority can be discussed but racial theories about black superiority are a no go? It's that context in which the letter was written. The whole drama and various reactions and explanations that she doesn't necessarily believe in the melanine theory can all be found at the Crimson.
But nice gutter journalism there. You once again reinforce my very low opinion of you.
It’s “problematic” to have someone who espoused racist pseudoscience lead the civil rights division. The appeals to hypocrisy only confirm that your principles, if you had any, move like a windsock.
Friendly reminder that Joe Biden and his team remain an enemy of humanity everywhere.
NOS of course, being the rapacious cunt that he is, will only chime in when the issues involved somehow involve xenophobia over China or in this case, looking to poke the fires of racial tension.
"The only way to sincerely believe more Patriot Act-like laws will benefit Americans is to believe that the US will only have wise and beneficent leaders going forward, and the only way to sincerely believe the US will only have wise and beneficent leaders going forward is to be completely shit-eating stupid."
https://caitlinjohnstone.com/2021/01/15/consent-manufacturing-for-patriot-act-ii-continues/
"They’re not actually worried about “domestic terror”, they’re worried about any movement which threatens to topple the status quo. They want to make sure they can adequately spy, infiltrate, agitate and incarcerate into impotence any movement which provides a threat to America’s rulers and the system which funnels them wealth and power at the expense of everyone else. The movements which most threaten this are not rightists, who are generally more or less aligned with the interests of the oligarchic empire, but the left."
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jan/17/joe-biden-executive-orders-trump-climate-iran-covid
What left?
The Mormons used to top the list of violent domestic terrorists. Religion makes more terrorists than politics ever will.
Washington resembles East Germany. This is what our new government thinks of its subjects.
That a bunch of violent Trump supporters will storm Congress to stop the inauguration of a democratically elected President? Where could they have got such an idea?
It's not your government.
Rioters stormed Trump’s inauguration. Imagine the optics had he employed American soldiers to maintain law and order in the nation’s capitol. We don’t even need to imagine it; he was called a fascist dictator for even suggesting it as violent rioters tried to breach the Whitehouse fence.
We don't need to imagine anything in this case. It happened less than two weeks ago. Trump was apparently not under much threat since the crowd didn't try and lynch him. Biden is because the crowd did actually try and lynch the man who counted his votes. Different crowd. Trump protestors aren't a wild mob of homicidal maniacs. Trump supporters are.
"Plan Colombia was originally conceived as a peace and development proposal by then-Colombia President Andres Pastrana in 1999. However, in the Clinton administration’s hands, it was radically altered into a massive militarization of Colombian society, Biden successfully lobbying for 80 percent of the $7.5 billion total to go to the Colombian military (with much of the weaponry finding its way into the hands of far-right death squads linked to the government). In the era of 9/11, narco-traffickers were rebranded “narco-terrorists” as a flimsy justification for U.S. interference. Biden was among its key architects, telling the Des Moines Register in January that “I’m the guy who put together Plan Colombia,” adding that it “straightened that government out for a long while.”
What was billed as a huge anti-drug push turned into a war against the population, with the government carrying out a massive chemical defoliation regime, forcing huge numbers of people off the land and clearing it for multinational corporations. The plan also ended up giving the government and associated far-right paramilitaries carte blanche to massacre whom it liked under the premise that anyone opposing them were drug smugglers. Over 10,000 innocent civilians were murdered, the government dressing them up as narco-terrorists, their numbers being used to trigger more funding from the U.S. on the grounds that dead bodies equaled progress in the fight against drugs. Under Plan Colombia, the country became the most dangerous place to be a trade unionist, according to Amnesty International, with more unionist murders happening inside Colombia than in all other countries combined. The United Nations estimates that 7.4 million Colombians are internally displaced to this day because of the ongoing civil war and Plan Colombia, with millions more leaving the country altogether.
The plan’s stated goal of drug reduction did not even work, as cocaine producers simply moved across the border to other Andean countries not affected by the war, returning when the violence subsided. By 2017, domestic coca production reached an all-time high, according to the U.N."
https://www.mintpressnews.com/mass-incarceration-plan-colombia-biden-role-war-on-drugs/271375/
I'm not saying this as any contradiction, but the thing that sticks out is how Biden keeps taking credit for stuff, and not good stuff. Usually an architect doesn't stop passersby outside a building, saying "You know, I actually built that."
Either he's surprisingly easy to shoulder out of his own work (worrying) or he seems addicted to taking credit for the work of others (also worrying).
Even if there's a large element of exaggeration in his actual role in pushing most of the above, it's a case of 'when a person tells you who they are, believe them'. Biden's whole life has been spent making life more miserable for people; his policy language is punishment and pain. There's no reason to think the next 4 years of his upcoming presidency will be any different. Ironically he is positively rosy when trying to work with Republicans, when, all of a sudden, he will sing paeans to 'bipartisanship' and 'working together'.
That tells us he changes his political opinions as he changes his clothes, according to the fashion.
But he hasn't changed his political opinions. He has been remarkably consistent for 4 decades. And now he's proposing to extend his Patriot act, as among his first acts in office. Biden simply isn't a centrist, and never has been. It's fashionable to say that he's a Republican in all but name; frankly I think it's worse than that - I think he taught Republicans with the examples he set.
It seems like Democratic Presidents are becoming increasingly hardline as Republican ones become increasingly moronic, as if they're filling the void for making "tough decisions" (spin for unpopular solutions to genuine problems).
Yet have to say that the OP from was spot on. This is the kind of opinions I look for in this forum.
And one Finn was wrong, but I said it was just a possibility :sad:
But in my defense, then another popular thread about one Coronavirus was just starting too.
From refugee to president. Cool.
I've watched a good few inauguration speeches now, and at best they set a tone - one might reasonably hope is not entirely discordant with the tone of things to come! It was a good speech. I hope it's a good Presidency. I wish President Biden and America all the very best of luck!
Like his hairline, his teeth, his military career, and his campaign, Biden’s inauguration was a virtual one.
It must be the relief of having a president who is not an evil, self-obsessed cretin. At last.
The bad news is that the bar has been set so low, he doesn't even need to try in order to get approval from those who would support him in the first place, or even more broadly, those who opposed Trump. And those on the other side won't change their mind no matter what, so they don't matter either. So yeah, he could repeat that infamous Trump line about shooting somebody on Fifth Avenue and he wouldn't be wrong.
:vomit: :vomit: :vomit:
:lol:
You’re early in your criticism. Give him a chance. I’m a European Bernite, never been a fan of Biden, but I broke in tears yesterday realizing that the Trump nightmare was over. Biden did that: he beat Trump. That’s already something to be grateful for.
This was always the case. What has changed is the rise of domestic terrorism.
A lot of folks have showed up and stumbled, though. It’s quite facile and shallow now to say that it was a shoe-in, after he won, or that this or that person helped more than he did. Abrams too wanted Trump gone, and she did what she thought was necessary to achieve this.
Which is exactly the thing how to beat Trump. Not doing much is sometimes the correct thing.
Not to be a Bernie, which likely would have kept Trump in office. Yet now he has to do much with Covid-19, or otherwise it's back to the normal situation of the President being a hated person.
Biden targets Trump's legacy with first-day executive actions
You mean it was a collective effort? You bet.
America had to pull it back together. The choice was between democracy, however imperfect, and neofascism. The Squad chose their side a long time ago, and so did Bernie.
[img]https://static.timesofisrael.com/www/uploads/2021/01/000_8Z74CA.jpg
[/img]
Tbf though this is the Not Trump candidate being not Trump.
"On Wednesday, the Proud Boys Telegram group welcomed President Biden to office. “At least the incoming administration is honest about their intentions,” the group wrote."
NYT