|
Who do you wish to win the Democratic primaries? This poll is closed. |
|||
|---|---|---|---|
| Joe Biden, the Klansman |
|
8 | 0.91% |
| Bernie Sanders, the Hand Flailer |
|
578 | 65.76% |
| Elizabeth Warren, the Plan Maker |
|
185 | 21.05% |
| Kamala Harris, the Cop Lord |
|
4 | 0.46% |
| Cory Booker, the Super Hero Wannabe |
|
0 | 0% |
| Julian Castro, the Twin |
|
3 | 0.34% |
| Kirsten Gillibrand, the Franken Killer |
|
3 | 0.34% |
| Pete Buttigieg, the Troop Sociopath |
|
9 | 1.02% |
| Robert Francis O'Rourke, the Fake Latino |
|
2 | 0.23% |
| Jay Inslee, the Climate Alarmist |
|
4 | 0.46% |
| Marianne Williamson, the Crystal Queen |
|
19 | 2.16% |
| Andrew Yang, the $1000 Fool |
|
19 | 2.16% |
| Tulsi Gabbard, the Muslim Hater |
|
8 | 0.91% |
| Amy Klobuchar, the Comb Enthusiast |
|
1 | 0.11% |
| Just like in real life, nobody voted for Hickenlooper |
|
2 | 0.23% |
| Jeffrey Epstein, the MCC Most Hated |
|
9 | 1.02% |
| KKKillary KKKlinton |
|
16 | 1.82% |
| Some other idiot not in this list |
|
9 | 1.02% |
| Total: | 879 votes | ||
|
Luckyellow posted:There's plenty of God-fearing theists that swear oaths on the Bible in Congress right now. I'm talking about Republicans. Do you think they're really going to care about oaths they made? No because they aren't systems thinkers, that's the ticket, systems-thinking and theism.
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 21:30
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 19:09 |
|
|
We are further away from Biden’s aneurisms than Biden’s aneurism was from independence for the Congo from Belgium.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 21:31
|
|
|
"Surgeon Paid to Work on Vice President's Brain Blows the Whistle: 'I did a great job, no accidents'."
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 21:33
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:some prime whataboutism right here The reason why "whataboutism" as you're using it here (and how it's usually used tbh) is a really stupid talking point is it inherently gives mainstream media and views a tremendous advantage, since they have the power to, through their reach/influence, keep opposing views on the defensive (and can just claim that any attempt to put things in context is "whataboutism"). Simply by attacking people they're opposed to - like Sanders - they can keep that the focus of the discussion, with people like you immediately defending against attempts to show that those attacks are clearly misleading, inconsistent, or hypocritical as "whataboutism." Also Sirota is fine and peoples' dislike towards him is dramatically overblown. Pembroke Fuse posted:Hypocrisy doesn't make the original issue go away. If I criticized you about unhealthy eating, while myself eating unhealthy crap, you could point to my hypocrisy... but it wouldn't make your own actions any better. In an absolute sense, your ethical behaviour doesn't depend on my ethical behaviour, although my attempt to attack you on ethical grounds does depend on my own record. That's why it's really easy to use whataboutism to muddy the waters. The issue is that this gives mainstream (and more powerful/widespread in general) sources the ability to dictate the terms of a discussion. All they have to do is keep levying attacks at people like Sanders, and by the bizarre standards of these "whataboutism" accusations people are obliged to defend against them, regardless of how hypocritical they may be. Maybe even some of the attacks are true. The end result is a conversation consisting 80% (or whatever) of attacks against the left, with any attempts to put those attacks in context being deemed "whataboutism." In practice, "whataboutism" is also frequently (if not usually in these discussions) the defense of concern trolls. It's an excuse for a concern troll to force people to reply to their "concerns," since any attempt to put those concerns in context (or force the concern troll to articulate a more clear and contestable position) can be called "whataboutism." Ytlaya fucked around with this message at 21:43 on Aug 20, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 21:33
|
|
|
Great look when you have to go 30 years back to get a proof that your brain at one point worked, as far as some guy can attest.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 21:35
|
|
|
Peacoffee posted:"Surgeon Paid to Work on Vice President's Brain Blows the Whistle: 'I did a great job, no accidents'." "Definitely No Surgical Tools Left in Vice President's Brain, claims Former Biden Doctor."
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 21:37
|
|
|
eke out posted:I said sue them for failure to meet their 6th amendment obligations - the thing VitalSigns insists is so easy to do. Having grant money available simply makes the state's argument harder and makes their alternative easier. The problem isn't that states lack the resources for public defenders, it's that they choose to spend those resources on other things. How many public defenders could have been funded with the billions in tax breaks, subsidies, and "economic incentives" that state and local governments offer to businesses as "economic incentives"? Wisconsin offered Foxconn over $4 billion in exchange for a promised factory, and the town in which the factory is being built has spent a billion and counting on supporting the development (taking out significant amounts of debt in the process, since the town couldn't actually afford those expenditures). The problem isn't that state and local governments can't afford to have enough public defenders - the problem is that there's no clear guidance as to how effective the public defenders have to be, so they're purposely underspending on public defenders so that they can pour more money into pork projects and corporate welfare instead. It's true that handing out grants that can only be spent on public defenders and nothing else could be one method of addressing this, but it's a rather roundabout and inefficient way to solve the problem of states refusing to spend their own money on indigent defense. Besides, the idea of going through the courts isn't as crazy as it sounds, given that the Supreme Court is the entity that invented public defenders in the first place. The requirement that free legal defense must be provided to anyone who can't afford their own lawyer, as well as the requirement that this free legal defense must be an effective one rather than a halfassed effort, were both invented by the Supreme Court in response to Sixth Amendment cases. And while the current Court undoubtedly leans conservative, Roberts has been openly complaining for years about the underfunding of federal public defender programs, and Sixth Amendment jurisprudence over the past decade has been mixed enough that there's definitely a path to 5-4 (or even 6-3) in favor of a stronger mandate for public defenders. Of course, we'll only know for sure if we actually try it, rather than simply writing it off as impossible and pursuing less ambitious policies instead. In the end, this is all a matter of opinion, and we're not going to agree on the right course. But it's clear to see that on public defenders, as well as on many other policies, Sanders has chosen a bolder and more ambitious course than Warren. And for me, that's a plus.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 21:38
|
|
|
FULL RECOVERY GUARANTEED? NO, MALPRACTICE!
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 21:40
|
|
|
Lightning Knight posted:This is a phenomenon I don’t know the proper name of but which continues to mystify me. The Fishmech Effect
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 21:47
|
|
|
Groovelord Neato posted:it does matter since east jerusalem would be palestine's capital and it's an enormous gently caress you to recognize israel's claim to it. I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure the embassy is in West Jerusalem.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 21:51
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:The Fishmech Effect “BE QUIET OR THEY WILL HEAR YOU”
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 21:55
|
|
|
havin a very normal one, my doctor is out saying my brain is good, my polls are crashing, I am ascendant
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 21:58
|
|
|
At this point Biden could be walking around with a blatant nail embedded in his head and I genuinely don't think his numbers would dip.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 22:00
|
|
|
Oh Snapple! posted:At this point Biden could be walking around with a blatant nail embedded in his head and I genuinely don't think his numbers would dip. Hey, I already made a Phineas Gage Joke 
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 22:03
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:The issue is that this gives mainstream (and more powerful/widespread in general) sources the ability to dictate the terms of a discussion. All they have to do is keep levying attacks at people like Sanders, and by the bizarre standards of these "whataboutism" accusations people are obliged to defend against them, regardless of how hypocritical they may be. Maybe even some of the attacks are true. The end result is a conversation consisting 80% (or whatever) of attacks against the left, with any attempts to put those attacks in context being deemed "whataboutism." Yeah and these arguments that Sanders or his team are 'unethical' are obviously not clear-cut cases (because duh they aren't doing anything clearly unethical). Instead they take something that is somewhat unfamiliar to the public and make it sound really bad by reporting on it like it's some kind of anomaly, Sirota or whoever is doing something no one else would ever do so it must be some egregious sin. Anyone trying to defend the behavior on its merits is smeared as a hypocrite: "oh you're lying, if anyone else did what Sirota did you'd be apoplectic". But of course when anyone brings up that this behavior is perfectly common and unremarkable and gives examples of other people doing it, the narrative flips "Ah-HA! Whataboutism whataboutism, it must be bad if you can't defend it on its merits and you're dragging Zerlina Maxwell into this, this isn't about her this is about Bernie the Terrible!" There's basically no way to win unless you have a ton of time to sit people down and walk through the whole narrative, and the media knows that and counts on people coming away with the impression that Sanders is somehow unethical. Both arguments are perfectly crafted to satisfy the kind of language pedant who inherently gives credence to mainstream reporting and is suspicious of anything that contradicts the corporate media line. It's the same kind of thing they'll do with his plans frankly. They'll take some mundane uncontroversial and simple proposal like "step 1 give money to the states to fund PD's" and act like it's some unprecedented and ridiculously complex undertaking. "Give money to the states?  How, pray tell. HOW?!?! Who will print up the checks. What brand of printer will they use. Where will they buy the ink and who will refill the ink? Where will we hire them, what is this future hire's name and zip code and who did they have a crush on in first grade? How will we pay for it, how does congress appropriate funds, how does a bill become a law, what is the bank account info and routing number for every municipal government in America? Hmm? Hmmmmmmm? HA, Sanders has no answers!" And it's effective because the public generally doesn't know the details of how bills are written and how the mundane details are worked out in committee or devolved to federal regulatory bodies to handle, and the public hasn't read say Warren's proposal so they don't know that she'll also just say "increase funding by X%", and that all the questions are bullshit nonsense, they just assume that other candidates must have put answers for them in their proposals or else the media wouldn't be criticizing Sanders on those grounds.Although usually media talking heads aren't dumb enough to make literally the same proposal 5 minutes earlier before castigating Sanders for his impossible suggestion lol that takes a special kind of brain worms. E: Another example is tax returns: nonstop wall-to-wall coverage that Sanders has not released his tax returns, leaving out that neither have most other Democrats, and that releasing them a year before Iowa is not normal. Notice that it's now been four months since he released them and there's been exactly zero coverage of the other Democratic candidates who still haven't, because it was never about that, it was creating the impression that Sanders is shifty and untrustworthy. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 22:44 on Aug 20, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 22:41
|
|
|
Please do not besmirch the good name of Pinneas Gage, who even after his injury managed to be a productive citizen, unlike Uncle Joe.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 22:47
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yes actually it does, if you say I should be punished for not eating healthy, yet you don't think you should be punished for not eating healthy, then clearly you are not arguing from a consistent ethics, you just want me to be punished and healthy eating is the excuse. The existence or non-existence of universal moral axioms is kind of an open question. Its a pretty neat trick to try to make ethics inherently about internal consistency only (and makes ethics pretty straightforward), but that leaves you unable to deal with anyone who simply denies the validity of your ethical framework or claims that it does not apply to them. Again, not a resolved question, but looking for internal consistency has its limits. Ytlaya posted:The issue is that this gives mainstream (and more powerful/widespread in general) sources the ability to dictate the terms of a discussion. All they have to do is keep levying attacks at people like Sanders, and by the bizarre standards of these "whataboutism" accusations people are obliged to defend against them, regardless of how hypocritical they may be. Maybe even some of the attacks are true. The end result is a conversation consisting 80% (or whatever) of attacks against the left, with any attempts to put those attacks in context being deemed "whataboutism." I think I was pretty clear in the idea that "whataboutism" can be misused, and yes media orgs disingenuously concern trolling while backhanding arguments about the hypocritical nature of the attacks with "whataboutism" is just such a case. There are cases where it falls outside of that context however, like when none of us are major media orgs.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 22:53
|
|
|
Biden draw the rhino
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 23:02
|
|
|
Jesus I was unaware he'd had 2 aneurysms. The one person I know who ever had one has zero short term memory and lives with his family now so...wow. YMMV tho 
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 23:12
|
|
|
Lmao at Joe Biden having to let people know his brain is just peachy while continuing to sail to the primary with a double digit polling lead. Democratic primary voters are proving themselves dumb as dog poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 23:13
|
|
|
Pembroke Fuse posted:The existence or non-existence of universal moral axioms is kind of an open question. Its a pretty neat trick to try to make ethics inherently about internal consistency only (and makes ethics pretty straightforward), but that leaves you unable to deal with anyone who simply denies the validity of your ethical framework or claims that it does not apply to them. Again, not a resolved question, but looking for internal consistency has its limits. There is no way to deal with someone like that. If someone says "eating pancakes is worse than the Holocaust, and I saw David Sirota eating pancakes so he is megahitler" and they are willing to double down on their insane axiom forever and reject out of hand any ethical system (like utilitarianism) that conflicts with it, there is no objective way to prove them wrong. The most you can do is convince third parties that person is wrong in one of two ways. You can appeal to an ethical system the onlooker agrees with and show how this rule is inconsistent ("we agree that actions are wrong if they harm others, the Holocaust harmed millions of people and eating pancakes harms no one"), or you can show the person is a twit who is obviously lying ("dude you're eating pancakes right now, come on"). Now in the case of pancakes v The Holocaust the first argument is probably easier to make than waiting to catch the guy eating pancakes. But this Sirota thing is an esoteric issue where the harm isn't obvious and there's a ton of opportunity to muddy the waters about whether harm occurred or whether the potential of harm exists which necessitates professional standards against it, etc that the average person can't judge and doesn't have time or inclination to research (especially when the attacker is running a gish gallop of bad faith accusations). In that situation the latter is the better option. Other journalists do it all the time, no one cares, except when it's someone they already didn't like then suddenly they invent a new rule that applies only to one person. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 23:23 on Aug 20, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 23:21
|
|
|
extremely thrilled that Biden seems to be developing Trumpstyle goodbrain worms with the stress of campaigning https://twitter.com/onesarahjones/status/1163937529114124289?s=21
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 23:24
|
|
|
Failed Imagineer posted:Biden draw the rhino
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 23:28
|
|
|
Gyges posted:Honestly, Harris' absolute poo poo campaigning is more surprising to me than Biden's poo poo show. Her insistence on taking all sides of every issue is the type of dumbass poo poo you'd expect from a Biden era politician who started long before modern media and tech would call you on having a different position in every location.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 23:34
|
|
|
Holy poo poo it's like Elizabeth Warren's Risperdal page but somehow worse
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 23:37
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:She saw it work for Trump, but the Dem base is less credulous. OTOH Biden continues to lead all polls
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 23:40
|
|
|
Pembroke Fuse posted:I think I was pretty clear in the idea that "whataboutism" can be misused, and yes media orgs disingenuously concern trolling while backhanding arguments about the hypocritical nature of the attacks with "whataboutism" is just such a case. There are cases where it falls outside of that context however, like when none of us are major media orgs. The thing about "whataboutism" as an argument is that it isn't even always a fallacy. It's entirely possible for an accurate accusation of "whataboutism" to still be part of dishonest discourse. For example, let's say someone levies a technically-true attack at Sanders. Pointing out that all other candidates are guilty of the same thing to an even greater extent absolutely is "whataboutism," but it's also a reasonable thing to do. Because a technically-true attack can still be misleading. So I guess the main issue is that "whataboutism" isn't even always bad. It's not a matter of people wrongly using "whataboutism" (though that happens too), but that even accurate claims of "whataboutism" often aren't bad things. There are many times it makes perfect sense to put someone's claims in the context of other facts. It's a sort of "conditional" fallacy. Whether putting things in context (which is all that "whataboutism" is) makes sense depends entirely upon the thing and context in question.
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 23:44
|
|
|
"What I'm trying to do is go around from town to town. And I'm drawing as big of crowds -- bigger than anybody. Have you seen anybody draw bigger crowds than me here in this state?” - Joe Biden https://twitter.com/mviser/status/1163927536767852544
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 23:48
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/hamiltonnolan/status/1163942926050832385?s=21 very good brain on display today
|
|
#
?
Aug 20, 2019 23:50
|
|
|
goethe.cx posted:OTOH Biden continues to lead all polls Well, he's not taking lots of different positions. He's consistently taking centrist ones that unfortunately a lot primary voters like.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 00:09
|
|
|
InnercityGriot posted:Lmao at Joe Biden having to let people know his brain is just peachy while continuing to sail to the primary with a double digit polling lead. Democratic primary voters are proving themselves dumb as dog poo poo. There haven't been any votes in the primary yet, and all the poll numbers published are produced by propagandists with a narrative to drive, not by statisticians practicing agenda-free science.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 00:11
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:Well, he's not taking lots of different positions. He's consistently taking centrist ones that unfortunately a lot primary voters like. There's no evidence that's true.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 00:13
|
|
|
Zikan posted:extremely thrilled that Biden seems to be developing Trumpstyle goodbrain worms with the stress of campaigning Thee phrasing is very Trumpian too. He would have said it like this.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 00:14
|
|
|
I love how MSNBC is demonstrably blatantly just straight up slandering a colleague and taking a poo poo on the very concept of journalistic ethics in order to hoodwink the public into supporting their ghoulish political agenda and the main concern of the thread pedants is whether their defense of this indefensible behavior (which they recycled from Jim Crow apologists) could theoretically be a good faith argument is some alternate universe where up is down. E: Ytlaya posted:The thing about "whataboutism" as an argument is that it isn't even always a fallacy. It's entirely possible for an accurate accusation of "whataboutism" to still be part of dishonest discourse. It is always a part of dishonest discourse, only liars and hypocrites need to resort to cries of "whataboutism!" whenever their true motives are exposed. If you're not a hypocrite with selective ethics and ulterior motives, you don't need to fear context and you don't need to deflect from your own actions by screaming "whataboutism!" when they're noted, you can just make a consistent ethical argument and not make exceptions for yourself/your friends and then the "whataboutist" argument is powerless. But we're talking about neocons and neolibs so yeah lol obviously acting on genuine moral principles is right out, so sure MSNBC's best bet is yelling "whataboutism!" let's go with that. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 00:33 on Aug 21, 2019 |
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 00:28
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:Well, he's not taking lots of different positions. He's consistently taking centrist ones that unfortunately a lot primary voters like. yes but my point was that dem primary voters are dumb as sacks of dogshit as well
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 00:37
|
|
|
ross perot in hell posted:There's no evidence that's true. Until there's an actual primary, the polls are the only evidence we got.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 00:57
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:Well, he's not taking lots of different positions. He's consistently taking centrist ones that unfortunately a lot primary voters like. Charlz Guybon posted:Until there's an actual primary, the polls are the only evidence we got. Except polling data shows the opposite, that most Biden supporters are supporting him for reasons other than his policy positions. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 01:05
|
|
|
Charlz Guybon posted:Until there's an actual primary, the polls are the only evidence we got. They aren't evidence of anything except there are propagandists to produce them and motivated buyers to commission them. The methodology, top to bottom, is bunk rear end bunk.
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 01:12
|
|
|
In other light hearted news, Warren is now making a move to nab Castro's supporters away. https://mobile.twitter.com/ewarren/status/1163981513022722049
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 02:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 19:09 |
|
|
Ytlaya posted:The thing about "whataboutism" as an argument is that it isn't even always a fallacy. It's entirely possible for an accurate accusation of "whataboutism" to still be part of dishonest discourse. For example, let's say someone levies a technically-true attack at Sanders. Pointing out that all other candidates are guilty of the same thing to an even greater extent absolutely is "whataboutism," but it's also a reasonable thing to do. Because a technically-true attack can still be misleading. The funny thing about "whataboutism", is that it literally is a propaganda technique in the form of a rebuttal wherein one may simply dismiss any uncomfortable argument outright instead of engaging it at all. It's the perfect shutdown of what may or may not be legitimate criticism by the prima facie (I'm quite obviously right about this, look a magic logic term!) assumption that the accuser is only pointing out hypocrisy that they themselves are guilty of. Which is, of course, a ridiculous argument on a forum discussing third parties and their actions and motivations. joepinetree posted:Any day now the people who were incredibly concerned in this thread about Bernie hiring Sirota will express their outrage at Zerlina Maxwell being MSNBC's primary analyst while serving on the Biden foundation advisory council. GreyjoyBastard posted:some prime whataboutism right here In this case we have what happened to Sirota after he was hired by the Sanders campaign. Where the grievance against him was accurately detailing the record of media darling of the moment Robert "Beto" O'Rourke prior to his new job (Was there any other complaint about it? That alone is a bit hilarious in retrospect right? It was at the time too, even if you weren't cognizant) . David Sirota doesn't pretend to be something he isn't, he doesn't veil his journalism as some objective truth outside himself that he's just externally remarking upon. Sure, he supports Bernie and is friendly with him and has prior connections. Was he ever making derogatory poo poo up wholesale? Can anyone point to literally anything deserving of the en mass media critique (almost solely on twitter via blue checkmark poo poo-takers) which had a mirrored response by many in the previous thread. Maybe including you, Greyjoy, I don't care enough to check. You aren't a terrible person but throwing out whataboutism like you did is the laziest empty-headed poo poo. Even so this is more directed at the general tactic of it in its recent (since 2016 surprise surprise) renaissance. As opposed to how Zerlina Maxwell behaves all the time on a 24/7 media network as a supposedly independent minded objective analyst. I'd list examples but thats at least every week and moreover she's a bit player in a mass of people in that ecosystem constantly doing the exact same thing. The only thing particularly notable about her (and Joy Ann Reid who's past bigotry was laughably dismissed as what, hacking, Russians, who cares she rode it out and she serves the same purpose) is how much the media loves a black woman who'll toe the line so that they're both shield and cudgel. They don't seem particularly concerned with the far right not giving a gently caress about that decorum anymore but they still love to use it to bludgeon left endlessly. The media establishment in our current day and age is nearly entirely populated by the failed scion children or those who are more than happy to sell their being for a ticket to the club. So yeah, their affiliations matter whether or not they pretend they don't exist or that they're just mercenary as gently caress in regard to how they think the public should be informed. Oddly not an issue with Sirota, yes? And there's no need at all to hyperfocus on them, that they stand out versus the left in any way is the disgusting manner they allow themselves to be a vehicle for such blatant manipulation which countless others are happily engaged in for their own selfish benefit. A perfect example of the misuse of the idea behind propaganda term 'whataboutism' is comparing a sea of willing bullshit artists with non-stop wall to wall coverage to a small-time currently unemployed journalist tweeting about how no, in fact, here's Beto's actual record while so many are painting.him as the next coming of Obama sans any substance. Though to be fair... Addendum: please give me a sixer for dropping the mask (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Aug 21, 2019 03:43
|
|
