|
Aruan posted:edit: to add, i always have felt kind of i guess 'gross' about how people use any accusation in this context because it always feels to be kind of exploitative - that we can't just reject someone for bad politics, so instead you have to use the worst moment in someone's life as the 'proof' that someone who is objectively bad is bad. does anyone else feel this way? you see it on both sides, too: look at franken, it was like 'aha! we found something we can use to force him out!' - just ignoring the tragedy and trauma and jumping to how to use it. it feels seedy. even this conversation is always within the implicit context of "joe biden: good or bad", which again just feels wrong. uh what, do you think people were sitting around jonesing to get rid of Franken and said "yay he abused his powerful position to get access to women so he could sexually assault them and intimidate them into silence, now we finally get to force him out!" ? Does it not occur to you that he got forced out of his influential and powerful job, not because people "exploited" him sexually assaulting women, but because he was sexually assaulting women?
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 00:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 10:45 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:uh what, do you think people were sitting around jonesing to get rid of Franken and said "yay he abused his powerful position to get access to women so he could sexually assault them and intimidate them into silence, now we finally get to force him out!" ? i don't know if you missed the rest of my post, but i think that joe biden should be disqualified for many reasons that don't require someone feeling pressured to come forward who may not want to
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 02:42
|
|
|
nobody is talking about pressuring anyone to come forward, and it's weird that you're saying "well he's a bad politician anyway so he should go for other reasons", what if he's a great politician he should still go if he raped someone right?
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 02:49
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:nobody is talking about pressuring anyone to come forward, and it's weird that you're saying "well he's a bad politician anyway so he should go for other reasons", what if he's a great politician he should still go if he raped someone right? uh yes, of course, but i am disappointed that the determination of support of an objectively bad person - joe biden - rests on something unrelated to his terrible record as a politician, which seemingly does not matter. also good job quoting a post from 2 weeks ago, but you do you.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 02:52
|
|
|
I just started reading this thread today and when I got to the post I was like "uh what", I didn't realize there was a statute of limitations on your takes. Yeah Biden should have been kicked to the curb long before Reade accused him, but I don't get why you seem to think wanting to get rid of creeps like Biden or Franken is "exploiting" anything, I think most people who want there to be consequences for sexual assault want that because they abhor sexual assault, not because they are "exploiting" something
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 02:58
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I just started reading this thread today and when I got to the post I was like "uh what", I didn't realize there was a statute of limitations on your takes. at the time nobody was talking about franken, so yes franken is different
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 03:00
|
|
|
Franken was the example you used about people "exploiting" assault though, why do you think that's what was happening
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 03:01
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Franken was the example you used about people "exploiting" assault though, why do you think that's what was happening yes i think franken should've resigned, but i think the gop people calling him to resign while supporting other rapists are ghouls, and don't give a gently caress about sexual violence, yes. to put it another way: there is something that feels very gross about what are horrific violent crimes which should lead to serious criminal consequences being politicized and seemingly only mattering in political contexts Owlspiracy fucked around with this message at 03:08 on Feb 22, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 03:04
|
|
|
It's basically impossible to prevent one side from single-boosting harassment/assault cases for partisan reasons. It's a juicy bit of oppo that any sane person woukd be anbidiot not to take advantage of. All you can really do is appreciate the added help. I'm not particularly enraged by republicans boosting Biden's assault & harassment cases, any more than I was about Clinton boosting Trump's assault and harassment cases.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 03:09
|
|
|
Aruan posted:yes i think franken should've resigned, but i think the gop people calling him to resign while supporting other rapists are ghouls, and don't give a gently caress about sexual violence, yes. Oh I agree they are, I'm just not sure why that's a major concern. Like, clearly the ghouls aren't the majority of the people who forced him to resign (because if all those people were ghouls who hated him no matter what they would have made him resign already), most of the people who said "ok this guy needs to go" after the assaults came out were people disgusted by the assaults, that's just common sense. If Franken shot someone on 5th Avenue, the Republican ghouls would call on him to resign while supporting other mass shooters, but surely we wouldn't go "ugh why is everyone politicizing this" because most people calling on him to resign for committing murder are probably not politicizing this
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 03:22
|
|
|
Aruan posted:uh yes, of course, but i am disappointed that the determination of support of an objectively bad person - joe biden - rests on something unrelated to his terrible record as a politician, which seemingly does not matter. also good job quoting a post from 2 weeks ago, but you do you. I actually somewhat agree if I'm interpreting this right. Something that has kind of bugged me is that some people seem to view Biden being a rapist as being "disqualifying/beyond the pale" in a way that various other terrible things him and other politicians do aren't. I don't really understand why "pushed for a war with a 6-7 figure death count" doesn't fall under the same category of "this guy should be immediately rejected as both a politician and a human being." I think it's good that people believe Biden being a rapist is irreversibly damning, but I feel like many people treat a lot of the other immensely harmful things him and other politicians do as somehow just being "a difference in policy" (rather than an irredeemable act of evil).
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 06:35
|
|
|
If I had to guess, it's because the US still has very strict taboos against sexual misconduct (and even just sexual conduct, for that matter), while the taboos against violence in the us are quite weak. Similarly american culture generally glorifies violence and especially so when it's in the context of some violent conquest or other nationalistic duty
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 06:50
|
|
|
I think the people who are fine with 6 figure death counts are bad for sure, and while it's farcical to be cool with starting a pointless war that will bring mass murder (and mass rape!) but draw the line at one of the butchers who started it personally raping a woman himself, I'd still rather those people have a line somewhere than have no line at all. Like if someone says "I don't care about war or I don't care about a woman's right to choose, but I think Biden and Kavanaugh raped those women and I want them out", then I think that person is really dumb and evil for not caring about other horrible things, but I'll still take their support to get rapists out of power and if those rapists are also war criminals or fundies well hey then getting some of that out of power at the same time is even better. I think it'd be silly to accuse someone like me of "exploiting" the assaults in those situations, because I want assaulters out of power even if they don't start wars, and I also want war criminals out of power even if they don't commit assault but I can't make that happen unilaterally. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 06:53 on Feb 22, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 06:51
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:I actually somewhat agree if I'm interpreting this right. Something that has kind of bugged me is that some people seem to view Biden being a rapist as being "disqualifying/beyond the pale" in a way that various other terrible things him and other politicians do aren't. I don't really understand why "pushed for a war with a 6-7 figure death count" doesn't fall under the same category of "this guy should be immediately rejected as both a politician and a human being." The short version would be that you're talking about the difference between a personal act of evil versus the indifferent day to day workings of the American empire. The Iraq war would have happened with or without Joe Biden. Tara Reade getting assaulted would not have.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 07:28
|
|
|
Herstory Begins Now posted:If I had to guess, it's because the US still has very strict taboos against sexual misconduct (and even just sexual conduct, for that matter), while the taboos against violence in the us are quite weak. Similarly american culture generally glorifies violence and especially so when it's in the context of some violent conquest or other nationalistic duty I think it's a combination of this and the fact that, on a basic emotional level, people tend to judge politicians by their personal behavior and perceived moral character (since that's generally how people normally judge other people in their personal lives). Through this lens, being a rapist feels a lot more personally repulsive in a "I wouldn't want to interact with this guy IRL" way. So it's pretty easy to understand why people feel this way, but on a strictly "logical" level people should be just as repulsed by many other elements of both Biden's and most other politicians' histories (and I think the lack of that response is a symptom of all these horrific things being normalized in our society). some plague rats posted:The short version would be that you're talking about the difference between a personal act of evil versus the indifferent day to day workings of the American empire. The Iraq war would have happened with or without Joe Biden. Tara Reade getting assaulted would not have. This sort of reasoning kind of inherently lets people off the hook for facilitating various atrocities, since you can always say "if this person didn't do it, someone else would have." I think that on a gut level stuff like supporting war crimes as a member of government understandably doesn't feel as personally damning as something more "direct" like a politician raping someone, but that this shouldn't be the case.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 08:56
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:This sort of reasoning kind of inherently lets people off the hook for facilitating various atrocities, since you can always say "if this person didn't do it, someone else would have." I think that on a gut level stuff like supporting war crimes as a member of government understandably doesn't feel as personally damning as something more "direct" like a politician raping someone, but that this shouldn't be the case. I think I might have to disagree with you on that. First of all, you gave a strict definition earlier, pushing for a 6/7 figure death count in a war. Okay, so can we extrapolate that out at all to what would still fall under that definition? 6/7 figure death count if not even in a war? A war with a 4 figure death count? A non-war intervention with a 4 figure death count? Any death? What about voting in favor of a war that ended up failing? On top of that, does "pushing" mean speaking out on the senate/house floor in favor of it? Or does casting a vote in favor of it count? I would guess casting a vote in favor of it counts, but I do not want to put words in your mouth. Part of being a politician is that it would be hard pressed to find anyone who has served for a decent amount of time who didn't vote yes on at least one of these scenarios. If you think these are disqualifying terms, we would probably need clean everyone out of the senate/house/white house quite often. Even people like Bernie has voted in favor of various things such as not removing US troops from Bosnia in 1998 (which failed), for war authorization in Kosovo in 1999 (which failed), and for post 9/11 authorization to use force (which was written vaguely and heavily abused by the Bush/Obama/Trump administrations). I would argue it's impossible to think of these terms in black and white because there are things such as (one tiny example off the top of my head) "a bunch of people are already dying, should we do nothing and have that continue or intervene?". While for with personal actions such as rape/sexual assault, it's extremely black and white every single time. Kalit fucked around with this message at 17:21 on Feb 22, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 15:01
|
|
|
Kalit posted:I think I might have to disagree with you on that. First of all, you gave a strict definition earlier, pushing for a 6/7 figure death count in a war. Okay, so can we extrapolate that out at all to what would still fall under that definition? 6/7 figure death count if not even in a war? A war with a 4 figure death count? A non-war intervention with a 4 figure death count? Any death? What about voting in favor of a war that ended up failing? On top of that, does "pushing" mean speaking out on the senate/house floor in favor of it? Or does casting a vote in favor of it count? I would guess casting a vote in favor of it counts, but I do not want to put words in your mouth. Yeah now you're getting it!
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 15:06
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Yeah now you're getting it!  not quite. Using that logic, you can claim that Arnold Schwarzenegger is more qualified for political office in 2003 than Bernie Sanders. Which, I mean, if you honestly believe that than  E: To clarify, I think term limits would be a good thing. But I'd heavily argue against the statement "no experience in 2001/2002/2003 is better than literally every other federal politician except for Barbara Lee" due to her being the only one voting against authorization of AUMF. Kalit fucked around with this message at 15:21 on Feb 22, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 15:12
|
|
|
Kalit posted:
Only if you honestly believe Arnie didn't support the AUMF, and if that's your claim I'm going to need a citation of that
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 15:17
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Only if you honestly believe Arnie didn't support the AUMF, and if that's your claim I'm going to need a citation of that He definitely did not "push" for it, as there is no public statement of him talking about it and he was not in a political office at the time. Also, it's an example to show my broader point, I just went to the extreme of someone (who is well known) without political experience who held a political office. Kalit fucked around with this message at 15:25 on Feb 22, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 15:22
|
|
|
OK the flaw in your logic is that you think "replace people who vote for insane destructive wars" means "replace them with random people whose opinion on insane destructive wars I don't even know" I suggest instead, we vote for people who openly oppose those wars and promise not to start more of them, not just pick an actor and say "I don't know what he thinks, so by your logic he's better than Bernie" because that's not my logic that's yours.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 15:27
|
|
|
Also you're wrong there are very public statements of him talking about it that were easy to find https://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Arnold_Schwarzenegger_War_+_Peace.htm Arnold at the loving 2004 convention lol posted:Bush didn’t go into Iraq because the polls told him it was popular. But leadership isn’t about polls. It’s about making decisions you think are right and then standing behind them. That’s why America is safer with Bush as President. He knows you don’t reason with terrorists, you defeat them. He knows you can’t reason with people blinded by hate. They hate the power of the individual. They hate the progress of women; the religious freedom of others. They hate the liberating breeze of democracy. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 15:29
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Also you're wrong there are very public statements of him talking about it that were easy to find That was in 2004, after 2003 and already Governor. Also, I was responding to Ytlaya's post initially, so my original intention wasn't against what your logic is. I was just trying to convey my opinion in the difference in political votes that ended (or could end) in deaths and personal actions such as rape/sexual assault. Kalit fucked around with this message at 15:48 on Feb 22, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 15:34
|
|
|
Ok to answer your question: no I don't think you should have cast an anti-war vote for Arnold in 2003 without finding out what he thought about whether we should be doing more wars
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 15:36
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:I actually somewhat agree if I'm interpreting this right. Something that has kind of bugged me is that some people seem to view Biden being a rapist as being "disqualifying/beyond the pale" in a way that various other terrible things him and other politicians do aren't. I don't really understand why "pushed for a war with a 6-7 figure death count" doesn't fall under the same category of "this guy should be immediately rejected as both a politician and a human being." I think it's morally correct, but a tactical error - or at least a misunderstanding - on the left: liberals see Biden's career as a series of unfortunate mistakes he's better about now (bussing), things he can't really be blamed for (Iraq war), and stuff that's either "pragmatic", politically expedient, or they just flat out like and agree with (crime bill). Rape and sexual assault was something that liberals were saying was totally disqualifying for anyone, regardless of who it was or when it happened, and were fully behind MeToo (or claimed to be) when Biden started to move towards the candidacy. The idea was that we cannot continue to protect and empower rapists -> Joe Biden is a rapist -> we cannot allow him to become the Democratic nominee for president, much less president of the United States. This was a mistake on the part of the left because if the last few decades of American politics have taught us anything it's that reactionaries are immune to hypocrisy.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 17:16
|
|
|
Kalit posted:I think I might have to disagree with you on that. First of all, you gave a strict definition earlier, pushing for a 6/7 figure death count in a war. Okay, so can we extrapolate that out at all to what would still fall under that definition? 6/7 figure death count if not even in a war? A war with a 4 figure death count? A non-war intervention with a 4 figure death count? Any death? What about voting in favor of a war that ended up failing? On top of that, does "pushing" mean speaking out on the senate/house floor in favor of it? Or does casting a vote in favor of it count? I would guess casting a vote in favor of it counts, but I do not want to put words in your mouth. You have to draw the line somewhere, and I think that there's a certain level of harm where you can clearly say "this is significantly beyond what you'd 'normally' expect from the functioning of a large country." I think it's pretty reasonable if someone decides that no current federal-level politicians meet this standard, though. I get what you're saying - on some level literally anyone who hasn't held high office (or been very rich) is guilty of less harm simply by virtue of having not had the power to cause it. But, at the very least, I think that something like "actively pushing the Iraq War" definitely crosses the line from "normal" state functioning to "atrocity/war crime." Another way of thinking about this is that, in the same way as "electing politicians who are rapists" is harmful by virtue of enabling rape culture, the same applies to the way that "electing politicians who support/enable imperialism" enables the "normalcy" of those things. In both cases you're probably not going to see things change anytime soon, so both are kind of "idealistic" relative to the present.
|
|
#
?
Feb 22, 2021 18:07
|
|
|
this thread has caused me to re-evaluate my own feelings on this subject, and I just sent a lengthy email to my dad and brother, which I am completely sure will be totally non controversial, with the subject line "Tara Reade and the watering down of MeToo (Joe Biden Touches Women)"  I managed to dig some decent quotes in support of the point I was trying to make out of a New Yorker opinion piece from May, so that's like double dunking on my dad because he is a NYer addict. I am mostly mentioning this because I had thought about Reade, thought not nearly as deeply as Christine Ford, but reading all 12 pages of this thread last night and then doing some of my own digging around, changed my view on it, and I think she was muzzled and ostracized in a way that's super gross and indefensible. I'm also going to admit, despite now coming down on the side of "I believe Tara", that wouldn't have changed my (Biden) vote. This is an awful calculus for me and so I am fine with people calling it lovely or making a different decision, but, I've read Trump's divorce settlement text, I know that dude is a straight up rapist, too, and I personally am swayed by the "less harm for less people as quickly as possible" argument. I wish our system had not produced two rapists as the only candidates which stood any mathematical chance of being elected, and I am very plugged into and involved in local politics and trying to foster community dialog here from the ground up, because looking at the system top down it seems incomprehensibly broken to me. Cabbages and VHS fucked around with this message at 18:24 on Feb 23, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 18:18
|
|
|
Cabbages and Kings posted:and I personally am swayed by the "less harm for less people as quickly as possible" argument. This is always an interesting take to me. I'm not having a go at you, but when you say this, do you mean "less harm for less [white, American] people" or do you think that if he stayed in office Trump would have come up with something to match the Iraq war and the 94 crime bill?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 18:32
|
|
|
some plague rats posted:This is always an interesting take to me. I'm not having a go at you, but when you say this, do you mean "less harm for less [white, American] people" or do you think that if he stayed in office Trump would have come up with something to match the Iraq war and the 94 crime bill? The implication here is that iraq wouldn't of happened without Biden?
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 18:54
|
|
|
some plague rats posted:This is always an interesting take to me. I'm not having a go at you, but when you say this, do you mean "less harm for less [white, American] people" or do you think that if he stayed in office Trump would have come up with something to match the Iraq war and the 94 crime bill? I don't like this framing, because I wasn't voting in 1994: I was voting to decide who, in 2021, would do less catastrophic harm to me personally, my family, my country and the world. Yes, more or less in that order because I'm not going to disguise my pragmatism, but at the same time morality is heavy here and I would not have voted for Trump even if I somehow thought I would personally prosper under him. So, while admitting my own selfish bias, by "less harm", I literally mean "less human suffering on a global scale", and yes, I personally believe that the net impact of a Biden administration 2021-2025 is going to cause less overall human suffering both at home and abroad, than a 2021-2025 Trump II admin would have. If someone strongly disagrees with that idea and that was a reason they didn't vote for Biden, then I'd probably assume they are a rational actor working off a different set of information and experiences than I am. I've literally never felt less enthusiasm voting for anyone for anything before, but for me this was easier to live with than "not voting against trump" would have felt. So, again, this election feels like the end result of an AI designed to produce the most Sophie's Choice bullshit possible. What happens in 2022 and 2024, and how this feeds into that, is a lot murkier to me, but I am not a pundit or a pollster, I'm just some guy who feels like he's doing okay at the moment in a system designed to absolutely gently caress over everyone except for the .1%-1% of people who are actually steering it, but I have enough awareness of that fact to be pretty angry about it even if we're "doing okay". socialsecurity posted:The implication here is that iraq wouldn't of happened without Biden? Right, this is clearly hyperbolic. The '94 crime bill I am less certain what would have happened in Biden's absence, and that era is the very beginning of my memories of being politically active at all, and I think many of my opinions were things like "reps bad, dems good, except for Tipper Gore because she's going after Trent and Manson and I love Trent and Manson". Realizing as a young adult that single-issue gun voters and poo poo basically seem stuck in that mentality was a little disturbing to me. Cabbages and VHS fucked around with this message at 19:30 on Feb 23, 2021 |
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 19:28
|
|
|
Cabbages and Kings posted:Right, this is clearly hyperbolic. The '94 crime bill I am less certain what would have happened in Biden's absence, and that era is the very beginning of my memories of being politically active at all, and I think many of my opinions were things like "reps bad, dems good, except for Tipper Gore because she's going after Trent and Manson and I love Trent and Manson". Realizing as a young adult that single-issue gun voters and poo poo basically seem stuck in that mentality was a little disturbing to me. The crime bill was an extension of the Reagan-era drug war that carried bipartisan support because being "tough on crime" was a no-brainer election strategy. Black communities continued to be dilapidated by crack, and congresspeople from both parties helped by sending black people to prison in such numbers that today we cannot physically contain them all. Being a Democrat was unfortunately never enough, we live in a center-right political environment on the national level at the best of times. The system is heaving from the astronomical amounts of money being wasted on failed, ignorant, or even evil policy, and that is more on Congress' (and peoples') minds than concern for the welfare of fellow citizens.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 20:03
|
|
|
Sodomy Hussein posted:The crime bill was an extension of the Reagan-era drug war that carried bipartisan support because being "tough on crime" was a no-brainer election strategy. Black communities continued to be dilapidated by crack, and congresspeople from both parties helped by sending black people to prison in such numbers that today we cannot physically contain them all. I agree with all of this. Being a Democrat was "enough for my parents", more or less. I was 13 in 1994. I didn't move significantly left of the DNC party line in any substantial way* until 2010 or so as I got increasingly cynical about the Obama administration, and, given that I've copped to voting for Biden this year, I'm clearly "right wing" as compared to plenty of others. The crime bill was bad, and we voted for Bernie in the primary because he seemed like the best choice in the field, also we live in Vermont. * on fiscal / US hegemony issues, anyway. The hypocrisy of the dems w/r/t the drug war and a bunch of other poo poo was on my radar the second I started carrying weed on my person when I was 17 or 18
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 20:10
|
|
|
socialsecurity posted:The implication here is that iraq wouldn't of happened without Biden? Would Covid have happened without Trump? If you want to talk harm reduction it seems important to factor in the things a person is directly responsible for, partly responsible for, and strongly in favour of. Those are two things Biden is extremely responsible for, and more importantly two things I believe he would do again in a heartbeat.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 20:38
|
|
|
some plague rats posted:This is always an interesting take to me. I'm not having a go at you, but when you say this, do you mean "less harm for less [white, American] people" or do you think that if he stayed in office Trump would have come up with something to match the Iraq war and the 94 crime bill? While I don't agree with it, I think that "less harm would occur if Biden is elected" is at least a plausible thing for a person to believe. I think the bigger issue is that, once you're deciding to make that kind of decision, you've basically already implicitly acknowledged that we're all doomed and no good future is possible. I think the "correct" answer is that it's a mistake to even engage with electoral politics in circumstances like that (in a way other than "recognizing the entire institution as an enemy," anyways). If the only options for President are people like Biden or Trump, it seems misguided to be invested in that choice rather than the circumstances that lead to that choice in the first place. It's like if someone lived in Nazi Germany and was arguing about the importance of electing "Hitler, except he supports marginally improved rules of engagement for invading other countries (while still invading them) and seeks gender parity in the employment of concentration camp guards." Like, maybe in a vacuum that's technically better in the most literal possible sense, but you've kind of lost your way if you think making that decision plays any role in achieving a decent future.
|
|
#
?
Feb 23, 2021 23:33
|
|
|
Ytlaya posted:While I don't agree with it, I think that "less harm would occur if Biden is elected" is at least a plausible thing for a person to believe. I think the bigger issue is that, once you're deciding to make that kind of decision, you've basically already implicitly acknowledged that we're all doomed and no good future is possible. This is a ludicrously reductionist (and lazy Godwinning) viewpoint when you can point to any number of issues that the Biden administration has been a measurable good for people on already, in February 2021. If it's getting your precise way every time or otherwise "We're doomed and the future refused to change," that amounts to pouting and will attract that level of respect for your position. Everything is a continuous fight and if you sit it out you're still serving someone's interest in practical terms and they're not your friend. I would ask people to follow Sanders' example, who certainly isn't 1:1 with Biden on policy but through the effort of decades made things that were politically impossible pipe dreams as late as 2016 become central issues to the Democratic Party in 2021, and is now Chair of the Senate Budget Committee. Actual change takes decades, and revolutions from the top basically don't work in American politics. It's definitely frustrating when every election is "What are you gonna do, vote for the other guy?" but that's the reality of it. We do what we can when we can do it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2021 00:02
|
|
|
Sodomy Hussein posted:It's definitely frustrating when every election is "What are you gonna do, vote for the other guy?" but that's the reality of it. We do what we can when we can do it. I voted for La Riva. So yes, you can vote for other people.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2021 01:11
|
|
|
Sodomy Hussein posted:you can point to any number of issues that the Biden administration has been a measurable good for people on already, in February 2021. Such as? Sodomy Hussein posted:I would ask people to follow Sanders' example, who certainly isn't 1:1 with Biden on policy but through the effort of decades made things that were politically impossible pipe dreams as late as 2016 become central issues to the Democratic Party in 2021, Again, such as?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2021 01:24
|
|
|
some plague rats posted:Would Covid have happened without Trump? If you want to talk harm reduction it seems important to factor in the things a person is directly responsible for, partly responsible for, and strongly in favour of. Those are two things Biden is extremely responsible for, and more importantly two things I believe he would do again in a heartbeat. I’m not really sure how to interpret the bolded part. Are you merely asking if it would have happened without Trump, or are you implying there would be no difference in its impact, regardless of who was president?
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2021 01:34
|
|
|
John_A_Tallon posted:I voted for La Riva. I’m not sure that really lines up with, what I interpret as being, the argument being made for harm reduction. A vote for La Riva wouldn’t have had any impact on who was elected president, at least in the 2020 election.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2021 01:44
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 13, 2024 10:45 |
|
|
some plague rats posted:Such as? I'm not going to further entertain this to turn this thread into U.S. Pol 2 just because some posters got laughed out of that one. In practical terms if you didn't vote for Biden or Trump you may as well have not voted for president at all. That is the choice in front of people who have not decided that engaging with the electoral system is unacceptable. That is why people voted Biden even when they suspected or believed he committed a sexual assault. Because the one actual alternative admitted to one on tape, and nothing happened, except that he got to mismanage a hundred-year pandemic and kill hundreds of thousands through negligence. Electoral politics simply isn't about which candidate is without sin, it never has been.
|
|
#
?
Feb 24, 2021 01:50
|
|