|
Scientist Al Gore posted:Trump is actively destroying the planet to the extent that Oil and Gas companies disagree with him and don't even want it. That's much worse, no? Biden will do that too. Obama was catastrophically bad on this front and Biden will at best go back to that, more likely be far worse. "Carbon-free by 2050" (how the hell is he going to guarantee that when he won't govern past 2028, or 2024 if he keeps to his pledge of a single term?) means the destruction of the planet just as surely as Trump does, and Biden has a lot of fossil fuel executives on his team, suggesting that even the above is nothing but another lie of his. "Better" here doesn't mean "good" or even "halfway decent"; we're still dead either way. Scientist Al Gore posted:They're putting their "revolution" above the livelihood of others. I see that mask slipping.
|
#
?
May 7, 2020 00:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 17:44 |
|
|
Somfin posted:If the climate was as important to him as it seems to be to you, why is he setting the goal date so far after his own death? Biden is going to turn into Zombie Biden and keep the presidency until 2050. 
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2020 00:54
|
|
|
Scientist Al Gore posted:Some stupid loving joke rather than engaging with the actual point How bad does Biden need to be before you'll decide that he's worse than Trump? If an objective measure is a comparison, what new evidence could change your mind?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2020 00:55
|
|
|
Roland Jones posted:Biden will do that too. Really? Weird, how come not a single other Democratic candidate has called him out on such? Why have the leading climate scientists and other environmental groups supported him? Roland Jones posted:Obama was catastrophically bad on this front and Biden will at best go back to that, more likely be far worse. "Carbon-free by 2050" (how the hell is he going to guarantee that when he won't govern past 2028, or 2024 if he keeps to his pledge of a single term?) means the destruction of the planet just as surely as Trump does, and Biden has a lot of fossil fuel executives on his team, suggesting that even the above is nothing but another lie of his. "Better" here doesn't mean "good" or even "halfway decent"; we're still dead either way. That's not true at all. The IPCC has been studying the difference between impacts of different temperature levels and it isn't true in the slightest.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2020 00:56
|
|
|
Somfin posted:How bad does Biden need to be before you'll decide that he's worse than Trump? If an objective measure is a comparison, what new evidence could change your mind? It depends, what are my options? Is he less bad than the other guy? Is there a 3rd Party that actually has a decent chance of winning?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2020 00:57
|
|
|
Scientist Al Gore posted:Really? Weird, how come not a single other Democratic candidate has called him out on such? Why have the leading climate scientists and other environmental groups supported him? Maybe you should have read the posts about this earlier in the thread when you made the same stupid point and were roundly called out on it? Just a thought. Scientist Al Gore posted:It depends, what are my options? Is less bad than the other guy? Is there a 3rd Party that actually has a decent chance of winning? The other guy is Trump. What new evidence could come forward that would make Biden worse than Trump in your eyes?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2020 00:57
|
|
|
I think the most telling thing is that when it comes to the awful things Biden has done, his defenders itt shrug their shoulders and say "ah, well." But suddenly they care very much about Right and Wrong and Fairness when it comes to argument techniques and rhetoric. "morality is p negotiable so you know, killing a million people or being racist is meh but HOW DARE YOU CALL HUNTER BIDEN A CRACKHEAD. HOW DARE YOU"
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2020 00:58
|
|
|
Somfin posted:Maybe you should have read the posts about this earlier in the thread when you made the same stupid point and were roundly called out on it? Just a thought. Ah you mean the part where I show leading climate change experts, endorsements from environmental groups, etc. endorsing Biden? And including a link that describes how we're not going to simply die once we past 2C? Somfin posted:The other guy is Trump. What would make Biden worse than Trump? Honestly, I am not sure there simply a ton of variables but I'd start with him saying the recent armed Michigan activists are good people.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2020 01:03
|
|
|
Scientist Al Gore posted:Ah you mean the part where I show leading climate change experts, endorsements from environmental groups, etc. endorsing Biden? And including a link that describes how we're not going to simply die once we past 2C? And the responses you got then, yes. Scientist Al Gore posted:Honestly, I am not sure there simply a ton of variables but I'd start with him saying the recent armed Michigan activists are good people. Cool, so open support of fascism would be enough. What would you actually do if that came forward?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2020 01:04
|
|
|
Scientist Al Gore posted:Really? Weird, how come not a single other Democratic candidate has called him out on such? Why have the leading climate scientists and other environmental groups supported him? It's true, you liar. Climate scientists say we have less than a decade to make major changes, if that: quote:Do you remember the good old days when we had "12 years to save the planet"? Biden's plan is insufficient and means irreparable harm to the planet, at best. He won't even pledge to 45% by 2030. He won't even ban fracking. Which is why climate scientists and advocates aren't actually that excited for him. COVID-19 posted:I guess this is the best we could do to fight against Trump. Vote Blue No Matter Who Thank you for this; still somewhat light on details, but it makes it clear that Biden was pushing for this, and even fighting pharmaceutical companies on it, rather than just "having heard of it and thought it sounded interesting". Roland Jones fucked around with this message at 01:19 on May 7, 2020 |
|
#
?
May 7, 2020 01:09
|
|
|
From what I can tell, there's two different sane reasons not to vote for Joe Biden even though he appears to be the "lesser evil" 1. "Normally, I try to vote for the lesser evil, but this time I just can't stomach Joe Biden because he's simply too evil" 2. "I don't always vote for the lesser of two evils because, by setting standards for candidates to earn my vote, I encourage candidates to meet that standard." Both are valid and somewhat similar, but 1 is emotional and 2 is pragmatic, and I think we run into some confusion when they get confused. I was in camp 2 until Tara Reade came forward and now I'm in camp 1 as well. Does that look right to anyone?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2020 01:10
|
|
|
Scientist Al Gore posted:They're putting their "revolution" above the livelihood of others. This is a pretty unique way to dismiss a movement entirely focused on improving the livelihood of others.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2020 01:13
|
|
|
Somfin posted:Maybe you should have read the posts about this earlier in the thread when you made the same stupid point and were roundly called out on it? Just a thought. How do you feel about the trolley problem? Because most people believe there’s a right answer to that and it’s not “do nothing because I don’t like the choice.”
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2020 01:14
|
|
|
These are not things you do or say if you can be trusted to fight fascism: In 1989, Biden criticized President George Bush’s anti-drug efforts as “not tough enough, bold enough or imaginative enough. The president says he wants to wage a war on drugs, but if that’s true, what we need is another D-Day, not another Vietnam, not a limited war, fought on the cheap.” Biden helped lead the push for the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, which lengthened sentences for many offenses, created the infamous 100:1 crack versus cocaine sentencing disparity, and provided new funds for the escalating drug war. Eventually, with his co-sponsorship of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, his long-sought-after drug czar position was created. Biden approached Thurmond privately to sort out their shared priorities. Biden brought with him a 90-page draft bill and a promise: “If you keep your right-wing guys from killing this bill, I’ll keep the liberals off the bill." Bush’s plan, Biden added, “doesn’t include enough police officers to catch the violent thugs, not enough prosecutors to convict them, not enough judges to sentence them, and not enough prison cells to put them away for a long time” — a direct call for more incarceration. He accused Reagan of “unnecessary budget cuts” to crime funding. “Violent crime is as real a threat to our national security as any foreign threat,” Comprehensive Control Act: This 1984 law, spearheaded by Biden and Sen. Strom Thurmond (R-SC), expanded federal drug trafficking penalties and civil asset forfeiture, Works Cited: https://theintercept.com/2019/09/17/the-untold-story-joe-biden-pushed-ronald-reagan-to-ramp-up-incarceration-not-the-other-way-around/ https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/4/25/18282870/joe-biden-criminal-justice-war-on-drugs-mass-incarceration
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2020 01:16
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:I think the most telling thing is that when it comes to the awful things Biden has done, his defenders itt shrug their shoulders and say "ah, well." I think the most telling thing about this thread is that when any of the terrible things Trump from him individually, his administration and the GOP are mentioned it's shrugged off as "Well, Biden and the Democrats aren't perfect.".
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2020 01:17
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:How do you feel about the trolley problem? My answer to the trolley problem is that you should pull the lever, and I believe that out of a sense of rule utilitarianism. The (well, one) difference between the choice facing voters and the trolley problem is that voters are players in a game with multiple iterations, where their choices during one round affect the choices available in future rounds. If you're thinking about the elections after 2020, the ones in 2022, 2024, 2026, 2028, you want to affect the candidates that'll be available, and the stance those candidates will have, and the mechanism available to you as a voter is to set standards for which candidates you'll support and which you won't. If you look at every election as a totally isolated choice, where afterward everyone forgets everything that happened and we all start over for the next one, then voting for Biden is obviously rational. But the voting blocks we establish now - either loyal democrats or picky leftists - matter going forward, and the picky leftists have more influence and power to improve the world. This isn't just a decision about which candidate is better, it's a decision about what kind of voter you want to be, and whether you want the Democratic party to take your vote for granted
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2020 01:19
|
|
|
Roland Jones posted:Biden will do that too. Obama was catastrophically bad on this front and Biden will at best go back to that, more likely be far worse. "Carbon-free by 2050" (how the hell is he going to guarantee that when he won't govern past 2028, or 2024 if he keeps to his pledge of a single term?) means the destruction of the planet just as surely as Trump does, and Biden has a lot of fossil fuel executives on his team, suggesting that even the above is nothing but another lie of his. "Better" here doesn't mean "good" or even "halfway decent"; we're still dead either way. Roland Jones posted:It's true, you liar. Climate scientists say we have less than a decade to make major changes, if that: Now, it's major changes? Stop moving goal posts. In any event, I don't dispute that but it's pretty unlikely any US Presidential Candidate would be to ensure we don't hit 2C but we need to reduce emission. Joe's phenomenally better than Trump on this issue and he doesn't even have to do anything to be better because Trump is intent on making it worse.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2020 01:21
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:How do you feel about the trolley problem? You do know that the actual trolley problem was a choice between "change the tracks to actively kill less people" and "do nothing and allow more people to die" right The correct moral answer, of course, is "refuse the idea that the trolley problem applies to anything in real life" Scientist Al Gore posted:Now, it's major changes? Stop moving goal posts. What are you gonna do if Biden endorses open fascism?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2020 01:22
|
|
|
Roland Jones posted:It's true, you liar. Climate scientists say we have less than a decade to make major changes, if that: Are the climate scientists and climate activists saying we should re-elect Donald Trump? That's literally the only other option, if Biden becomes the nominee. I will start taking you seriously on climate when your solution stops being "thus, we need to re-elect Donald Trump because he will ultimately be better on climate" because that is clearly 100% false and nobody but the jilted internet left is arguing it.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2020 01:22
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:My answer to the trolley problem is that you should pull the lever, and I believe that out of a sense of rule utilitarianism. The (well, one) difference between the choice facing voters and the trolley problem is that voters are players in a game with multiple iterations, where their choices during one round affect the choices available in future rounds. If you're thinking about the elections after 2020, the ones in 2022, 2024, 2026, 2028, you want to affect the candidates that'll be available, and the stance those candidates will have, and the mechanism available to you as a voter is to set standards for which candidates you'll support and which you won't. Trying make some crazy wild prediction potentially decades in the future with a billion data points is impossible. Why should I even consider this?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2020 01:24
|
|
|
How are u posted:Are the climate scientists and climate activists saying we should re-elect Donald Trump? That's literally the only other option, if Biden becomes the nominee. I will start taking you seriously on climate when your solution stops being "thus, we need to re-elect Donald Trump because he will ultimately be better on climate" because that is clearly 100% false and nobody but the jilted internet left is arguing it. If you keep accepting the poo poo sandwich, that's what you'll keep getting fed! The fact that your other option is a poo poo sandwich with glass in it doesn't mean you need to take it. What you need to do is flip over the table and get out of the box that the people feeding you put you in.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2020 01:25
|
|
|
Somfin posted:You do know that the actual trolley problem was a choice between "change the tracks to actively kill less people" and "do nothing and allow more people to die" right "Change the tracks to actively kill less people" would make a good Biden campaign slogan. Somfin posted:What are you gonna do if Biden endorses open fascism? Declare my home a sovereign state and begin the revolution.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2020 01:26
|
|
|
Scientist Al Gore posted:Declare my home a sovereign state and being the revolution. Bullshit. Scientist Al Gore posted:Trying make some crazy wild prediction potentially decades in the future with a billion data points is impossible. Why should I even consider this? Because you're trying to tell us that Biden is the right choice when you can't even see two months into the future let alone seven, let alone two years, let alone four years, let alone the thirty year time window that Biden's climate plan requires
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2020 01:27
|
|
|
Scientist Al Gore posted:Trying make some crazy wild prediction potentially decades in the future with a billion data points is impossible. Why should I even consider this? I don't see how it's a crazy, wild prediction to suggest that candidates base their policy positions on the demonstrated preferences of voters, but only the voters who aren't guaranteed to vote for you just because you get the nomination, or because you're the lesser evil. This is because those candidates want to win, and you win by calibrating your positions to maximize your votes (taking donations into consideration). They don't worry about the guaranteed voters, because those are guaranteed. They chase the picky ones, who have to be chased. So if you have a position you want candidates to adopt, you should be a picky voter who votes for a candidate if and only if they adopt that position. This exact insight was demonstrated by the Tea Party, who influenced GOP candidates to adopt more radically conservative/reactionary precisions precisely because they threatened not to vote for nominees that failed to meet their standards, even though obviously any republican is preferable to any democrat in the eyes of a Tea Party voter. Let me know where you disagree here. My only predictions are that there will be candidates in future elections in America and that those candidates will want to win - if that's a wild idea to you, and you believe that 2020 will probably be the last election we ever have, then it makes sense to vote for Biden
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2020 01:29
|
|
|
yronic heroism posted:How do you feel about the trolley problem? This is not like the trolley problem. This is like a different trolley problem where there's thousands of people on each track and it looks like the Trump track might have a little more (though it's unclear), but the Biden track has a much higher chance of staying on a track with a bunch of people still on it 4-8 years from now. To throw out some fake numbers to illustrate the point, it's highly plausible that the "expected harm" under Trump could be something like 100 + 0.5*25 (the 100 harm under Trump himself plus a 50% chance of 25% of the harm 4-8 years from now that represents the chance of electing someone good after Trump) while the harm under Biden is 95 + 0.2*25 (where the harm under Biden himself is a little less than Trump, but there's a much lower chance of electing someone decent in 4-8 years because Biden would be the incumbent and if a Republican won in 2024 that Republican would be the incumbent). In other words, there's at least some chance of nominating a progressive candidate in 2024 if Trump ends his term then, while there's virtually zero chance until 2028 at the earliest if Biden is elected (and even then Republicans would have a better chance of getting the following term). Obviously it's impossible to know what the numbers and probabilities here will be in reality, but it is extremely likely that there's a lower chance of electing a good candidate 4-8 years from now under Biden than it is after Trump. So if you understand that the possible benefit to electing a decent candidate dramatically outweighs the difference between Trump and Biden (if you generously assume that Trump would be worse in the specific role as president), it is extremely plausible to believe that Biden has a worse expected outcome. And this is generously ignoring the fact that Biden probably has a higher chance of passing a variety of harmful changes. vvv This is another good way of putting it; the choice during this "round" affects the choices in future "rounds." Civilized Fishbot posted:My answer to the trolley problem is that you should pull the lever, and I believe that out of a sense of rule utilitarianism. The (well, one) difference between the choice facing voters and the trolley problem is that voters are players in a game with multiple iterations, where their choices during one round affect the choices available in future rounds. If you're thinking about the elections after 2020, the ones in 2022, 2024, 2026, 2028, you want to affect the candidates that'll be available, and the stance those candidates will have, and the mechanism available to you as a voter is to set standards for which candidates you'll support and which you won't.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2020 01:29
|
|
|
Somfin posted:You do know that the actual trolley problem was a choice between "change the tracks to actively kill less people" and "do nothing and allow more people to die" right The trolly problem also is specifically constructed to only offer two options because it’s necessary for the thought experiment to work. The fact that so many people want to apply it to real life is basically akin to how people desperately hold on to their conspiracy theories; it takes this complex moral/social/political problem and turns it into a binary question with a single morally correct answer, which means they don’t ever have to think about anything at all, they can just be a Good Person Doing The Right Thing. As a way of handling cognitive dissonance, it sure seems effective! E: naturally, said better and faster by others.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2020 01:31
|
|
|
Somfin posted:Bullshit. The correct logical answer, of course, is "refuse the idea that the "Biden goes fascist problem" applies to anything in real life".
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2020 01:31
|
|
|
Civilized Fishbot posted:I don't see how it's a crazy, wild prediction to suggest that candidates base their policy positions on the demonstrated preferences of voters, but only the voters who aren't guaranteed to vote for you just because you get the nomination, or because you're the lesser evil. Don't get me wrong. I absolutely agree, it's just that I believe "lesser evil" voting is entirely acceptable, works and Trump is much more evil than Biden. By a long shot. Civilized Fishbot posted:This is because those candidates want to win, and you win by calibrating your positions to maximize your votes (taking donations into consideration). They don't worry about the guaranteed voters, because those are guaranteed. They chase the picky ones, who have to be chased. So if you have a position you want candidates to adopt, you should be a picky voter who votes for a candidate if and only if they adopt that position. I don't disagree with anything you said, I agree with all of it. A hundred percent.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2020 01:35
|
|
|
Sharkie posted:If you keep accepting the poo poo sandwich, that's what you'll keep getting fed! And how does one do that in the November 2020 Presidential Election? Re-elect Donald Trump?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2020 01:37
|
|
|
How are u posted:Are the climate scientists and climate activists saying we should re-elect Donald Trump? That's literally the only other option, if Biden becomes the nominee. I will start taking you seriously on climate when your solution stops being "thus, we need to re-elect Donald Trump because he will ultimately be better on climate" because that is clearly 100% false and nobody but the jilted internet left is arguing it. Well, dang, I had started to think you were actually engaging reasonably but now you're busy building yourself opponents out of straw, rather than addressing a single thing I actually loving said. Meanwhile Scientist Al Gore already went mask-off with that "revolution" post, among other things, and is still being dishonest about the science, so it's starting to look like this is all a waste of time. Enjoy voting in favor of rape and a slightly prolonged climate armageddon, I guess.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2020 01:37
|
|
|
Roland Jones posted:Enjoy voting in favor of rape and a slightly prolonged climate armageddon, I guess. Why aren't you voting for Jay Inslee?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2020 01:38
|
|
|
Roland Jones posted:Well, dang, I had started to think you were actually engaging reasonably but now you're busy building yourself opponents out of straw, rather than addressing a single thing I actually loving said. Meanwhile Scientist Al Gore already went mask-off with that "revolution" post, among other things, and is still being dishonest about the science, so it's starting to look like this is all a waste of time. If Biden and Trump are my two choices then I will choose Biden because his administration will be better for the climate than Donald Trump. That's the entirety of the math. Biden's climate platform is deeply disappointing, but it exists. It is unarguably better than the alternative. Find me the climate scientists or climate activists who are arguing in favor of accelerationism and I'll dig into their arguments with great interest. You are not offering up any alternative other than "Trump wins a 2nd term".
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2020 01:43
|
|
|
Scientist Al Gore posted:I think the most telling thing about this thread is that when any of the terrible things Trump from him individually, his administration and the GOP are mentioned it's shrugged off as "Well, Biden and the Democrats aren't perfect.". do you know what the difference is between +3.9C by 2050 and +4.0C by 2050 is?
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2020 01:48
|
|
|
Somfin posted:The other guy is Trump. What new evidence could come forward that would make Biden worse than Trump in your eyes?  ), and also did that thing where he made his mouth look like an rear end in a top hat, except the rear end in a top hat Biden made with his mouth were even more flaccid and disgusting than the one Trump makes with his?I bet that would do it.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2020 01:48
|
|
|
We are gonna Better Things Aren't Possible our way into Armageddon.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2020 01:50
|
|
|
Scientist Al Gore posted:Ah you mean the part where I show leading climate change experts, endorsements from environmental groups, etc. endorsing Biden? And including a link that describes how we're not going to simply die once we past 2C? Endorsements from a bunch of shitlib organizations more concerned with their own institutional inertia than they are with the cause they claim to exist for, should mean nothing, to anybody. Those aren't endorsements based on policy - they are endorsements based on politics. You'll note that the Sunrise Movement has not, and apparently will not, endorse Joe Biden.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2020 01:53
|
|
|
Scientist Al Gore posted:The correct logical answer, of course, is "refuse the idea that the "Biden goes fascist problem" applies to anything in real life". If you logic-ed yourself into believing that Biden is the best way forward, you must be able to logic yourself out of it. Thus there must be new evidence that would actually convince you. "Biden voicing support for fascists" is not unreasonable as a line in the sand. You have to understand you are arguing with people for whom their line in the sand is elsewhere. We are not unreasonably anti-Biden, we simply say that he already crossed the line and we can no longer support him. Just as you have now put down in writing that he could pass the line for you. We have seven months to go yet; I would recommend figuring out what you'll actually do if that happens. I suspect when he makes some sort of claim about "reasonable people on both sides" you'll figure out some reason that doesn't actually count. How are u posted:If Biden and Trump are my two choices then I will choose Biden because his administration will be better for the climate than Donald Trump. That's the entirety of the math. Biden's climate platform is deeply disappointing, but it exists. It is unarguably better than the alternative. The thing is, there's other choices. One of the third parties could win if they got enough votes. Biden could fuckin' die. Lots of changes could happen. I don't think that they will, but I'm not going to obstinately stand in the way of people who want the change that I actually believe in, in the name of maybe almost having a slight chance at partially reducing the current rate of acceleration (assuming that the promises aren't all bailed on), with the additional note that the guy who's saying that is a dying rapist who fondles children on camera. If the trolley problem is the actual model you're using, I say ignore the switch and try to derail the train in the direction of a third set of tracks with no-one tied to them. It might not work, but if enough people join in it could.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2020 01:55
|
|
|
MSDOS KAPITAL posted:You'll note that the Sunrise Movement has not, and apparently will not, endorse Joe Biden. I hadn't heard this so I googled. I assume you're referring to this article https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/y3m8kw/the-sunrise-movement-is-really-struggling-to-live-with-joe-biden quote:“I am not willing to vote for Joe Biden,” one Sunrise member wrote in the Zoom chat among the group last week titled, “Bernie's Out: Where We Go from Here.” Sounds to me like Sunrise is basically going through the same unfortunate turmoil as we are here in D&D. I imagine they'll come around sometime in the next 6 months.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2020 01:56
|
|
|
Somfin posted:
OK, that's a lot of hopeful talk about a 3rd party winning, but in this November 2020 Presidential Election I am reasonably certain a 3rd party won't be a viable choice, and the only two realistic outcomes are either Trump wins reelection or the (D) wins. If, over the next 6 months, there's some incredible expression of dissatisfaction that the DSA or Greens somehow manifest the same degree of political support as the Republicans and Dems, and have some actual path to winning the Presidency, I'd certainly be interested.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2020 02:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 10, 2024 17:44 |
|
|
MSDOS KAPITAL posted:Yeah I mean the loving HRC is endorsing him, and we have records of women's groups coming out hard against Bernie during the primary for stuff that is extremely tame compared to what Biden has done. Climate scientists have gone on the record that climate change is systemic problem that will only be solved through policy, that's why they are supporting him.
|
|
#
?
May 7, 2020 02:07
|
|