|
GreyjoyBastard posted:"donald trump will win because he handled the coronavirus crisis well" is certainly a take Money talks.
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 21:17
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 19:43 |
|
|
Shere posted:
Carew posted:This is a delusion. There is no incremental solution to climate change. We've been following the primary and we've seen how aggressive and confrontational he is with climate activists whenever they try to push his policies left. He even loving tells them to vote for someone else. I currently don't see any pathway for something like a GND through Biden. https://joebiden.com/climate/ quote:Biden believes the Green New Deal is a crucial framework for meeting the climate challenges we face. It powerfully captures two basic truths, which are at the core of his plan: (1) the United States urgently needs to embrace greater ambition on an epic scale to meet the scope of this challenge, and (2) our environment and our economy are completely and totally connected. now, this is literally the only time he mentions it by name on the page, so apparently there's a podcast ep on climate, so i imagine at some point i'll subject myself to it for you people
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 21:17
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:you don't actually believe this, or you'd be desperate to get trump out of office in 2020. like it's not worth having the discussion when we both know that you don't actually believe the thing you're saying. You don't actually believe any of this. It's not worth having the discussion when we both know the only reason you're resorting to this type of "argument" is because you have absolutely no moral high ground and no leverage with Joe Biden as the nominee, so you're forced to resort to gaslighting and trying to tell people what they do and don't actually believe.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 21:18
|
|
|
It's great that posting about posters gets you a timeout, but EW gets to shitpost for 20 pages about the imaginary version of posters he's concocted in his head without consequence.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 21:20
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:You're correct that Trump will kill us marginally faster than Biden, but the scale of the problem is so massive that it renders the slight delay in our nation destroying itself under Biden functionally the same. And Biden's climate denialist tendencies will force the rest of the party rightward on climate with him. Thus restricting future chances at policies that have now have to be even more radical (and thus get more resistance from the Biden wing) thanks to Biden's delays. ok, now think this through to the obvious conclusion: "if policies after a biden administration must be even more radical...what would the policies need to be after a trump administration???" like, you recognize that there's still a path there after a fatally flawed biden response. and then you sort of suggest that path is easier if you let trump spend another four years making it much, much worse and dismantling things set up to try and make it better, rather than half-measures that can be built on. and again, we have a happy situation where the whole oil and gas thing may be moot anyway. fracking is a big deal in pennsylvania (the specific reason that the GND is kind of an electoral liability, because PA is ... kind of a key state), but the entire industry is currently dying incredibly hard right now in a way that may really moot the need to consider it in winning pennsylvania in the future.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 21:21
|
|
|
Eminai posted:It's great that posting about posters gets you a timeout, but EW gets to shitpost for 20 pages about the imaginary version of posters he's concocted in his head without consequence. report him if you have a problem, it's not clear-cut enough for me to zap especially outside of my demesne and he's actually been very well behaved for evilweasel although, mod hat half-on, evilweasel, arguing with "the thread" to which you explicitly ascribe opinions is worse form than engaging what particular posters actually say (or even your misreading of particular posters lol, because at least then they can rebut you), so if Paineframe whacks you for that I ain't shedding no tears Pedro De Heredia posted:Do you? I am quite confident that we can't be quite confident of "eight years of very limited progress" until we see Biden's veep. Goatse James Bond fucked around with this message at 21:27 on Apr 27, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 21:24
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:it's not. but you get closer to fixing it. Do you? You are saying, unambiguously, that four years of Trump followed by eight years of a solid Democrat can't possibly be better than eight years of Biden and his VP; very likely mediocre Democrats? That the damage to the environment done in four years of Trump is impossible to offset in any way and so the only real choice is to prevent it from happening? This is somehow a risk-averse position that doesn't take the risk seriously at the same time, worst of both worlds. Pedro De Heredia fucked around with this message at 21:33 on Apr 27, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 21:26
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:https://joebiden.com/climate/ 2050 is not embracing the GND. at all
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 21:27
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:my answer to "why is biden better than trump" is that it's so loving obvious anyone who reads a newspaper knows it instinctively, "My guy is better than other guy, it's obvious, I know it instinctively" is not a statement from an informed impartial observer, it is the desperate rantings of a religious zealot. If it were actually "loving obvious" that Biden is better than Trump, then the reasons would be easy to elucidate.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 21:27
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:https://joebiden.com/climate/ Of course Biden lied and said the GND is impossible: quote:"Not a single solitary scientist think it'd work," Biden said, interrupting. "You can not get to zero emissions by 2030. It's impossible." Just a little fact we'll ignore, right? Just like we have to ignore the Oil & Gas executives writing his climate policy. Or the fact Biden refuses to ban Oil & Gas drilling or even just ban Hydraulic Fracturing. But I'm sure he'll make a good faith effort to pass the GND. (Biden of course, was wrong about the science behind the GND. )
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 21:27
|
|
|
Syenite posted:The options are climate change gets radically addressed, it gets worse with regulatory rollback etc, or it gets worse by lovely half-baked policy that lets people think it's being addressed No. The options are it 100% gets worse with regulatory rollback, or it maybe, probably, eh who knows, gets worse by lovely half-baked policy that lets people think it's being addressed Those two options are not the same.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 21:27
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:report him if you have a problem, it's not clear-cut enough for me to zap outside of my demesne and he's actually been very well behaved for evilweasel i mean, i've responded to plenty of people directly and in a quite lengthy post, it's just that at a certain point i need a shorthand because there's a lot of posters posting similar things and it takes a while to find a specific poster to use as an example. if anyone thinks i've ascribed views to "the thread" as a shorthand that are not widely shared or that i didn't give specific examples of, i am happy to do so.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 21:28
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:ok, now think this through to the obvious conclusion: "if policies after a biden administration must be even more radical...what would the policies need to be after a trump administration???" like, you recognize that there's still a path there after a fatally flawed biden response. and then you sort of suggest that path is easier if you let trump spend another four years making it much, much worse and dismantling things set up to try and make it better, rather than half-measures that can be built on. Do you believe it's possible to make a convincing case for Biden without referencing Trump or the GOP, and with keeping it consistent with Biden's prior actions in elected positions? If so, what would that look like?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 21:28
|
|
|
GarudaPrime posted:No. The options are it 100% gets worse with regulatory rollback, or it maybe, probably, eh who knows, gets worse by lovely half-baked policy that lets people think it's being addressed it's not "maybe, probably, eh who knows". we know. the science has spoken. 2050 is too late to stop climate change. it will get worse if your plan will only finally reach 100% renewables by 2050
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 21:31
|
|
|
GarudaPrime posted:No. The options are it 100% gets worse with regulatory rollback, or it maybe, probably, eh who knows, gets worse by lovely half-baked policy that lets people think it's being addressed Those two are actually functionally the same since the current policy pre-rollback still makes it worse. Everyone here agrees Biden will fail to address climate change in a realistic way. So the challenges and harms of climate will get worse under Biden. We will need increasingly more radical plan to prevent decreasingly as much harm as the GND would have. What people are arguing is to what degree will be slightly worse under Trump and to what degree does Biden's anti-climate tendencies mean the Democratic Party and the public will be less likely to adapt the increasingly radical plans required to save this nation. That's what's so rending about climate, passing the 2020 GND in 2028 is not longer sufficient. We will have to do something even more radical or suffer the consequences.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 21:33
|
|
|
GreyjoyBastard posted:report him if you have a problem, it's not clear-cut enough for me to zap especially outside of my demesne and he's actually been very well behaved for evilweasel I don't have plat and can't report. I don't blame you for not wanting to probe outside USPOL, though. I'm just venting.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 21:33
|
|
|
Eminai posted:It's great that posting about posters gets you a timeout, but EW gets to shitpost for 20 pages about the imaginary version of posters he's concocted in his head without consequence. You have to adjust your low-pass filter for noise like that.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 21:34
|
|
|
Pedro De Heredia posted:Do you? i see no reason that the end result of another trump term is "eight years of a solid democrat". to the extent there is a significant impetus for action in 2024 it will be stronger if Biden has been president than trump, because things will have been done to make it better and the economy will not have collapsed. the "overton window" to use a common thread term will have shifted towards the left, leaving the question more "how much" rather than "do we do anything". a biden administration will have been able to do things that make more extreme action easier - it is harder to promise someone you're killing their job but you'll supply a new one later, it is easier to implement the new jobs then kill off the remaining jobs. his VP will need to win a primary - she will be a favorite, but she will still need to win in her own right and will have a very easy chance to break from any of his policies she doesn't like. there are no guarantees in life but the chances of trump being president for the next four years being better than biden being president is vanishingly small. the argument you're making appears to believe that you can win in politics by losing. i mean, it's not impossible, but generally you win by winning. Kreeblah posted:Do you believe it's possible to make a convincing case for Biden without referencing Trump or the GOP, and with keeping it consistent with Biden's prior actions in elected positions? If so, what would that look like? i do not think it makes sense in the context of an election to not discuss the alternatives. that is a fundamental part of an election: what are the alternatives? what are you changing; what are you keeping the same. but sure, it would involve a lot of copying and pasting from his campaign website and pointing out how specific things would be vast improvements over the status quo. it would not be possible to respond to "but i want better" without saying "these are the options"
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 21:36
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:ok, now think this through to the obvious conclusion: "if policies after a biden administration must be even more radical...what would the policies need to be after a trump administration???" like, you recognize that there's still a path there after a fatally flawed biden response. and then you sort of suggest that path is easier if you let trump spend another four years making it much, much worse and dismantling things set up to try and make it better, rather than half-measures that can be built on. Except again you're missing the scale of the problem. None of Biden's half-measures will be something that we can build on. Whatever new handout to Natural Gas that Biden delivers will have to be torn down to have a realistic climate policy. Meanwhile we'll have people like you and the talking heads declaring that "actually Biden is good on climate" while he ignores the challenges and harms his own inaction will cause. Biden will be a terrible president on climate, but because Republicans are worse we'll be left with Democrats and our allies using climate denialist talking points to defend Biden in the face of an uncomfortable reality. That's the problem, its that Biden will almost ensure that the Democratic Party follows him to the right on climate where at least under Trump we are still unified as a pro-science party. quote:and again, we have a happy situation where the whole oil and gas thing may be moot anyway. fracking is a big deal in pennsylvania (the specific reason that the GND is kind of an electoral liability, because PA is ... kind of a key state), but the entire industry is currently dying incredibly hard right now in a way that may really moot the need to consider it in winning pennsylvania in the future. This is just wishful thinking where you magic away the influence of the Oil & Gas executives Biden has hired.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 21:39
|
|
|
Kreeblah posted:Do you believe it's possible to make a convincing case for Biden without referencing Trump or the GOP, and with keeping it consistent with Biden's prior actions in elected positions? If so, what would that look like? I mean, I think it's possible, but since I myself am not entirely convinced by it I'm not exactly going to be the most compelling advocate.  Given that my great lesson from the Obama years was that Good Incrementalism Isn't Good Enough, my grudging support for novemberbiden has to be predicated on the GOP being worse and Biden not being a death knell for leftism / not being worse for leftism than more Trump, unless he somehow picks a Real Good veep and administration. Which could happen, I guess, but his campaign advisors haven't filled me with joy and excitement so far.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 21:39
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Everyone here agrees Biden will fail to address climate change in a realistic way. no i don't (most specifically because "realistic" is a flexible term that i have no idea what it means, and also "will"); i merely choose to assume that for the sake of argument precisely to draw out the inherent contradictions in the arguments made here what i am arguing is, that even if you assume that Trabisnikof posted:What people are arguing is to what degree will be slightly worse under Trump and to what degree does Biden's anti-climate tendencies mean the Democratic Party and the public will be less likely to adapt the increasingly radical plans required to save this nation. it's not "slightly" worse, it's massively worse; Biden doesn't have "anti-climate tendencies" (trump does) he has insufficiently pro-climate tendencies, and that it is much easier to get from "insufficiently pro-climate" to "sufficiently pro-climate" than "actually anti-climate"
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 21:41
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:such as? Tlaib or Nina as VP, progressives in the cabinet, and Bernie picks his Chief of Staff. Things that would say "we're not going to do what we did to you under Obama" these will, of course, never happen joepinetree posted:It would be a lot easier to argue that Biden would be less worse if we didn't have the last 2 democratic presidents enabling incredibly regressing legislation that Republicans would have never achieved because of the whole "Nixon in China" thing. Yeah pretty much this, which is why I normally just advise libs to stop trying to scold and brow beat the left into falling in line and instead focus their attention on calling and texting for Biden and going into conservative spaces to drum up support for him there. Biden's entire platform is "none of that Bernie poo poo is going to happen on our watch, his people won't even be able to ask for a seat at the table, we're banking on there being 10 million Jennifer Rubins out there" the party does not want the left on board, they are not reaching out to us, they are not making a space for us, their candidate literally keeps telling us to our faces to vote for Trump. Go badger chuds like The Party Decided already yronic heroism posted:Why should voting be a morality play about which candidate gets rewarded by winning? That makes for a nice Ron Howard movie but you have to buy into a cult of personality. Let’s say they are all bastards. Lincoln was a bastard, FDR was a bastard, LBJ was a huge bastard. lol, if Biden was a bastard this might apply, but he's not, can you imagine him liberating the slaves when he won't even consider something with far less economic impact on the nation like M4A? lmao
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 21:43
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:This is just wishful thinking where you magic away the influence of the Oil & Gas executives Biden has hired. no, that's the current reality, though it's not widely understood yet (and could be reversed, but that is...iffy). the entire fracking industry is currently going bankrupt. fracking requires constant drilling because wells are only productive for about two years; they spent the last two years going bankrupt, and then lol the current energy prices happened. it's not really clear anyone's lending anyone any money to go frack some wells anymore if prices recover next year because everyone who did that for the past decade lost their shirt, even the people in the safest of the safe loans are currently eating poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 21:44
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:it's not "slightly" worse, it's massively worse; Biden doesn't have "anti-climate tendencies" (trump does) he has insufficiently pro-climate tendencies, and that it is much easier to get from "insufficiently pro-climate" to "sufficiently pro-climate" than "actually anti-climate" I think favoring expanding Oil & Gas drilling in 2020, refusing to support a ban on Hydraulic Fracturing in 2020, and lying about climate science in 2020 all counts as anti-climate tendencies, obviously you don't. But this is exactly the divide between us. You think that the climate science supports the idea that expanding Oil & Gas drilling in 2020 is a reasonable policy. I disagree and I believe the science is so strongly on my side that I think one has to be either unread on the topic or willfully in denial. So you're going to keep seeing things like "helping gas drillers install a filter" as a good thing because of the marginal improvement while I see it as a bad thing because we need to stop drilling new wells.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 21:46
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:no, that's the current reality, though it's not widely understood yet (and could be reversed, but that is...iffy). the entire fracking industry is currently going bankrupt. fracking requires constant drilling because wells are only productive for about two years; they spent the last two years going bankrupt, and then lol the current energy prices happened. The Free Market will save us!
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 21:47
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Except again you're missing the scale of the problem. None of Biden's half-measures will be something that we can build on. Whatever new handout to Natural Gas that Biden delivers will have to be torn down to have a realistic climate policy. yeah this just gets back to "actually, the way to win is to lose" it's just a crazy idea. the biden campaign is campaigning on climate change is real, we need to do something about it. trump is campaigning on its a hoax, we're going to make it worse. the shift from "it's real, we should do something about it, but our ideas were not radical enough" is a pretty small one and it is incredibly easy to see how the party evolves that way. it's how it has been evolving. on the other hand the special pleading you need to get from trump winning a second term, sabotaging all international efforts to combat climate change, and going to "well we're going to do incredibly damaging things to our economy to fix this thing that, until recently, our national policy was it's a hoax"
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 21:50
|
|
|
Al Gore campaigned on climate change so I'm not sure we are moving forwards on climate change here by getting a candidate to the right of Al Gore
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 21:51
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:you don't actually believe this, or you'd be desperate to get trump out of office in 2020. like it's not worth having the discussion when we both know that you don't actually believe the thing you're saying. if you believed it was absolutely vital to get very strong environmental action done in the next four years or the planet dies, and that matters to you, you would not be going "eh gently caress it i don't care anymore im going home" I'm plenty desperate to get Trump out of office in November, but thanks for your opinion. Again, I don't know if you know how climate change works, but letting liberals dawdle alone with do-nothing plans while we check the thermostat every two years isn't going to work. There is a plan that exists and a scientific consensus that says more must be done and the Biden campaign can't even bother to lie about doing more. My actions align perfectly with my motivations and beliefs: I believe that Joe Biden is unfit the lead this country, I'm motivated to improve the system that gave us this option, so I will act by only voting for people whose views are at least within the same strata as my own. Joe Biden isn't one of them - and he's a rapist. Maybe the solution is getting a third party funding. Whatever it is, when you give me two options that are both literally unfit to be leaders of the country, I'm not going to pick either and this shouldn't be a loving surprise. e: If I believed the science that climate change is a snowballing, active, process - which I do - I wouldn't be okay with electing a leader whose initial plan is to kick the loving can down the road. Is he better than Trump, who is probably one tweet away from putting lead back in gasoline? Yes. That bar is on the floor, though, and my vote tacit is consent that this is okay. If my motivation is to save the planet, I'm not going to indicate to the only system that gives citizens power that Joe Biden's position on climate change is good enough by acting against my beliefs. Solanumai fucked around with this message at 22:15 on Apr 27, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 21:53
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:no, that's the current reality, though it's not widely understood yet (and could be reversed, but that is...iffy). the entire fracking industry is currently going bankrupt. fracking requires constant drilling because wells are only productive for about two years; they spent the last two years going bankrupt, and then lol the current energy prices happened. Such a shame that Biden’s former Gas Executives who write his climate policies don’t want to take this once in a lifetime opportunity to begin to unwind the industry. At least Biden doesn’t have “give massive subsidies to Natural Gas” on his website, just redoing the Clean Power Plan (a notorious handout to natural gas). Again I’d love to be proven wrong and for Biden to take meaningful action on climate. But the evidence points the opposite way.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 21:54
|
|
|
Sheepdogging climate realists into an administration that will continue extractive policies under the Democratic/Liberal banner is objectively worse than an administration that will continue those policies under the Republican/climate denier banner, yes.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 21:54
|
|
|
Rastor posted:"My guy is better than other guy, it's obvious, I know it instinctively" is not a statement from an informed impartial observer, it is the desperate rantings of a religious zealot. It's agonizingly familiar (and frustrating) to anyone who has tried to engage with Trump supporters - which maybe is what the Democrats are banking on. Brunch fanatics.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 21:57
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:i do not think it makes sense in the context of an election to not discuss the alternatives. that is a fundamental part of an election: what are the alternatives? what are you changing; what are you keeping the same. I disagree strongly on that. Comparisons are important, yes, but so is looking at a candidate in isolation. A vote for a candidate is an endorsement that they are fit for the office they're running for. If both candidates are repugnant, but one is somewhat less so, it's still not a great situation. Like, if we keep going down this "Dems chasing the GOP to the right" for another 20 years and somehow climate change doesn't destroy us before then, I'm curious what people would put up with from Democrats just to keep the GOP out. If the Republicans ran on reinstituting segregation, and the Democrats ran on putting all immigrants (including legal ones) in cages because they're going after the same racist voters, I can't say I'd be voting for either of them. evilweasel posted:but sure, it would involve a lot of copying and pasting from his campaign website and pointing out how specific things would be vast improvements over the status quo. Alright, fair enough. I personally don't believe that what he has on his site that's consistent with his record would be a vast improvement, but OK. GreyjoyBastard posted:Given that my great lesson from the Obama years was that Good Incrementalism Isn't Good Enough, my grudging support for novemberbiden has to be predicated on the GOP being worse and Biden not being a death knell for leftism / not being worse for leftism than more Trump, unless he somehow picks a Real Good veep and administration. Which could happen, I guess, but his campaign advisors haven't filled me with joy and excitement so far. This is basically where I'm at. I don't think it's an accident that I don't really see anybody trying to make this sort of case. I've not yet seen anybody try to make a case for Biden on his own merits. Just that he's the candidate to beat Trump. And, sure, if you believe Trump is an aberration, that could make some kind of sense. But it's absolutely farcical if you see Trump as a logical outcome of the lesser-of-two-evils thing we've had going for the last forever. People realize their lives are getting shittier, and they want change. It's why Obama won, and it's why Trump won. Both of them promised to make people's lives better. So, let's say Biden wins this year and has one or two terms. It's unlikely we'd see a Democrat elected immediately after him, at least based on the last several decades. We'd probably have a Republican president again because people saw that Biden didn't actually change things for them in any meaningful way (since "nothing will fundamentally change" for his donors, which is what would be required for people's lives to improve), and they'd want something different. Except the GOP base has had somebody who isn't afraid to say the quiet part out loud, plus they're probably going to get even more radicalized over the next eight years, especially with Fox News and other bullshit being dumped into their brains. So, they're going to want Trump II, whoever that is, and, unlike the Democrats' base, won't settle for anything less.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 22:03
|
|
|
I don't think the Biden switch is happening. I think instead you are going to see the liberal MSM gradually turn on him and depress his turnout to ensure a Trump victory. Trump has been a massive boon for them. He provides endless content which has led to record engagement and revenue for them, he cut their taxes, and it will let them keep up the charade of pretending to care about things like #metoo. It's win-win-win.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 22:05
|
|
|
You’re not going to suddenly get a socialist candidate for president after four more years of trump.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 22:10
|
|
|
RevolverDivider posted:You’re not going to suddenly get a socialist candidate for president after four more years of trump. We almost just got one. Twice.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 22:11
|
|
|
You'll definitely get a competent fascist after a term of Biden
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 22:12
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:i see no reason that the end result of another trump term is "eight years of a solid democrat". to the extent there is a significant impetus for action in 2024 it will be stronger if Biden has been president than trump, because things will have been done to make it better and the economy will not have collapsed. the "overton window" to use a common thread term will have shifted towards the left, leaving the question more "how much" rather than "do we do anything". a biden administration will have been able to do things that make more extreme action easier - it is harder to promise someone you're killing their job but you'll supply a new one later, it is easier to implement the new jobs then kill off the remaining jobs. This is what I mean when I say this is a risk-averse strategy that doesn't even take the risk seriously. Taking the Biden win now means, with almost absolute certainty, foregoing a better Democratic administration for the next sixteen years. In the last sixtysomething years in U.S. elections, there's only been one period of 16 years in which power wasn't split 8 to 8, and I don't think you believe Biden is going to be so great he and his VP usher an era of Democratic domination. Biden losing means maybe a better future is possible. It could also just mean that there is a lovely candidate in 2024 too and you just lost four years. That's the risk. Opportunity cost is a real thing. It exists. In the U.S. presidency the parties "get their time." What you are arguing for is preventing the other guy from getting more time, but by putting in a guy who'll do less with the time than another option. Essentially a stalemate, which works with some issues in which you can afford to stall, but you absolutely can't stall with climate change anymore! Pedro De Heredia fucked around with this message at 22:20 on Apr 27, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 22:12
|
|
|
evilweasel posted:yeah no. see, this is why this is not a position people in this thread have reasoned themselves into and it is not a position that they can be reasoned out of. You keep saying this but I don't believe that you actually unmotivated-reasoning-ed yourself into your current position. Your lack of even attempting to provide a reasoning path for your opponents, and instead ascribing them actual malice as their primary motivator, reinforces this for me. If you did, something must be able to reason you out of it, so answer me this: What new evidence, or situation, could arise that would cause you to no longer pledge to vote for Joe Biden? And since the obvious one is "he drops out and is replaced by someone else," I'd also like you to think through this: What new evidence, or situation, could arise that would cause you to no longer pledge to vote for the Democratic nominee, whoever they happen to be at the time?
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 22:15
|
|
|
RevolverDivider posted:You’re not going to suddenly get a socialist candidate for president after four more years of trump. You never get one voting for corporate power.
|
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 22:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 4, 2024 19:43 |
|
|
Pedro De Heredia posted:This is what I mean when I say this is a risk-averse strategy that doesn't even take the risk seriously. the idea that i should vote for trump today, because it virtually guarantees a democrat in 2024 based on (depending where "60-something" cuts off) extrapolating from at most 17 data points* is not a bet i care to make the idea i should not vote for biden today because it means "with almost absolute certainty" a republican in 8 years off, again, extrapolating from 17 data points; again, not interested. there is no data to support (nor could there be, unfortunately) the sort of strong conclusion you want to draw to any reasonable certainty *i believe the true figure would be less than half as you appear to be buying into the "its really hard to win a third term" argument which requires throwing out at least half of those data points because they're not exactly eight years from a change edit: your math is also wrong. carter was a one-term president, as was bush I, giving you several 16 year segments not split 8-8. evilweasel fucked around with this message at 22:22 on Apr 27, 2020 |
|
#
?
Apr 27, 2020 22:18
|
|