|
DeadlyMuffin posted:There's nothing about Trump or Rittenhouse breaking the law. It is straight up "the rule of law is bad because bad things happen under it". Are you loving with me or do you really have no clue what "everything" refers to in the sentence "Trump getting off scott free for everything". I think everything refers to all the crimes, do you think it refers to something else like serving Wendy's at the White House? How are u posted:I think student loan payments are not going to be the single issue determining whether generations younger than the boomers vote for a party that wants to take climate action vs the party that cannot acknowledge that climate change is real. Well now that's an interesting question: would I vote for Donald Trump if he promised to do good things? I'd have to say no because I would just assume he is either lying or just too incompetent to get it done even if he wanted to, or is the question would I vote for Donald Trump if he promised good things and I knew somehow he was telling the truth and would be able to do them? Very interesting. Would you vote for Donald Trump if he offered a Green New Deal and net zero carbon by 2040? Willa Rogers posted:I seriously doubt that people are double-psyching out the GOP nominee so that Biden wins against Trump, especially since only half of Dems want Biden to run again in '24, according to other polling. Didn't we see this in the election too, Boomers turned on Trump because he pretty much spent the last year of his term demanding they die for the Dow VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 02:15 on Nov 14, 2021 |
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 02:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 10:50 |
|
|
 Hmm yes this is the demographic that critically needs subsidies
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 02:14
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:The former administration made it legal to leak methane and nearly started subsidizing the coal industry because they're no longer competitive with renewables. The two parties are night and day different when it comes to climate change. Hell, Bush Jr. tried to privatize social security. Do the Dems support the radical changes we need to make to society and the economy just to mitigate the oncoming calamity? No, they don't. They only support a few token measures that will have minimal impact on their corporate donors, but are apparently enough to convince people like you that they're "night and day" from the Republicans. Just being slightly better than the fascist lunatics is not going to be good enough. They'd have to do some absolutely wild poo poo like banning fossil fuels entirely before I start to see them as "night and day". And yeah, you can say "well it's better than nothing", but so is bailing water on the Titanic.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 02:22
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:
Could you possibly try to explain your point in posting that graph instead of just dropping it and telling the rest of us how dumb we are for disagreeing with you?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 02:27
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:
Do you know what a median is camoseven posted:Could you possibly try to explain your point in posting that graph instead of just dropping it and telling the rest of us how dumb we are for disagreeing with you? I think the argument is that heart surgeons pull down a ton of money, therefore someone with a post grad degree who works at Starbucks must be raking it in too since they're part of the same demographic, therefore debt relief is unnecessary
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 02:29
|
|
|
Lib and let die posted:1) Please tell me why I'm wrong to applaud a governor that enacts an order that returns agency from massive agribusiness monopolies to tax paying citizens. In 2020, the governor of my state signed an EO that repealed a measure that made it illegal to grow edible plants on the road-facing side of a property - a very common feature of communally maintained sources of produce. This is objectively a good thing, even if all the other things you're referencing are bad things. Despite my faith in elections, I'm mad as hell that he interfered in the restoration of voting rights to incarcerated people, but that doesn't change that this one specific item is a good and praiseworthy measure. quote:Gov. Ron DeSantis signed SB 82 into law, meaning local municipalities are not allowed to regulate vegetable gardens on residential properties. Yes, it is good that Desantis did not veto this bill, but this is explicitly not a case of him showing initiative to pass any executive order allowing gardens. In this thread, you are advocating for killings of your political opponents, ‘libs,’ with euphemisms like ‘aggressive chemotherapy for America.’ This kind of advocation for terroristic violence is outright fascistic and has no business here, or anywhere. In this thread, you are outright jokingly cheering on fascists and republicans and praising how the likes of Desantis deserve our votes, no matter how badly they hurt everyone else when they try to hurt the libs. The bill that he allowed to pass, reversing the code enforcement of a few municipalities, was a normal state congressional item, not some grand push by your governor. It does not mitigate the harm he has personally caused. In this thread, you are lying and saying that sabotage of covid mitigation efforts should not be focused on, and instead the resulting covid mitigation problems should be blamed only on democrats and Biden. Desantis has personally worked to impede federal and local covid response efforts more than almost anyone else I can think of. His has been the worst response in the nation, even arresting state health workers who refuse his orders to lie about or hide the state’s unfavorable stats. Lib and let die posted:Instead of focusing on Trump, these outlets could be focused on the Democrats' objective failure to stem the times of the pandemic my response, to you posted:like, since covid started right-wing propagandists have been paying millions upon millions to frame masks and vaccines as an evil political plot and have been telling people and politicians it’s okay to outright sabotage coordinated inoculation efforts. The pandemic was worsened deliberately by the same donors supporting the republicans, its not like a simple failure to respond by ‘democrats’ quote:Jim Frederick, deputy assistant secretary of labor at the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), said that the mandate is expected to save thousands of lives and prevent tens of thousands of hospitalizations. Lib and let die posted:Thank you Governor DeSantis! You are wrong to applaud your governor.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 02:45
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Do you know what a median is The argument is the same as a week ago: people with degrees are a minority of the electorate, and relatively better off than the rest of the electorate. It’s fantastically easy to portray student debt relief as benefiting a relatively small, relatively well-off special interest group with significantly higher average incomes than the rest of the population. And it’s not inconceivable that it will piss people of to little or no positive net effect for Democrats, unless policy is enacted that helps non-student-debt-havers in meaningful ways, at the same time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 02:47
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:Do the Dems support the radical changes we need to make to society and the economy just to mitigate the oncoming calamity? Yes, some of them do! Off the top of my from Sean Casten, AoC to Ed Markey and many others! Fister Roboto posted:They only support a few token measures that will have minimal impact on their corporate donors, but are apparently enough to convince people like you that they're "night and day" from the Republicans. What token measures are you referring to specifically? I'm only asking because quick search that took me no more than fifteen minutes has show me that Biden and Democrats have removed Trump's methane de-regulation, suspending drilling in Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to investments in climate resilience especially poor at risk communities. Hell, check this out! https://twitter.com/RepWexton/status/1459589437063667731?s=20 Fister Roboto posted:They'd have to do some absolutely wild poo poo like banning fossil fuels entirely before I start to see them as "night and day". Given that climate change is as much as technical challenge as a sociopolitical how do you propose we do that exactly given that the world is dependent today on fossil fuels from electricity, plastics, medicine including fertilizer? Gucci Loafers fucked around with this message at 02:52 on Nov 14, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 02:48
|
|
|
morothar posted:The argument is the same as a week ago: people with degrees are a minority of the electorate, and relatively better off than the rest of the electorate. Then without question, that should be done. Is this a question? There's no reason why we should pick and choose who we're going to help based on political expediency. Everyone deserves a decent, livable wage and the basic necessities of life, regardless of who they are, what they are, or what they've done. F_Shit_Fitzgerald fucked around with this message at 02:56 on Nov 14, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 02:51
|
|
|
morothar posted:The argument is the same as a week ago: people with degrees are a minority of the electorate, and relatively better off than the rest of the electorate. Do you actually think that everyone with a degree is rich Like you get that the people who need student debt relief aren't the well-off kids who got into Harvard because daddy bought a new art wing right? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 02:59 on Nov 14, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 02:55
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Do you actually think that everyone with a degree is rich My statements along the lines of “people with degrees [as a group] are relatively better off and make significantly higher incomes than people without degrees” should really give you a hint as to an answer here.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 03:05
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:Who says it's dead? Manchin notes inflation is "getting worse," as House is poised to vote on social spending package (...) "By all accounts, the threat posed by record inflation to the American people is not 'transitory' and is instead getting worse," Manchin tweeted Wednesday. "From the grocery store to the gas pump, Americans know the inflation tax is real and DC can no longer ignore the economic pain Americans feel every day." (...) "An overheating economy has imposed a costly 'inflation tax' on every middle- and working-class American. At $28.7 trillion and growing, the nation's debt has reached record levels," Manchin wrote in the Wall Street Journal in early September. He pointed out that the nation had already spent $5 trillion to respond to the pandemic and lambasted Democratic leaders for pushing the costly BBB bill. Instead, he called for "a pause," which he argued would "provide more clarity on the trajectory of the pandemic, and it will allow us to determine whether inflation is transitory." Manchin is also waiting for the Congressional Budget Office to give the Senate its analysis of the costs and revenues in the bill. He has criticized the measure because the revenues extend for 10 years, while several of the provisions they fund are only written in for about 2 - 5 years, an approach he likened to a "shell game." He also has deep reservations about the fact that BBB will have to be passed without any Republican votes. (...) https://www.cbsnews.com/news/manchin-inflation-build-back-better-vote/
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 03:05
|
|
|
morothar posted:My statements along the lines of “people with degrees [as a group] are relatively better off and make significantly higher incomes than people without degrees” should really give you a hint as to an answer here. Could you explain how that's relevant If Alice is poor and deeply in debt and Bob is rich and they both have a degree, why does it matter that [as a group] they are relatively better off and make significantly higher incomes than people without degrees. What does that have to do with whether Alice needs debt relief or not.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 03:12
|
|
|
camoseven posted:Could you possibly try to explain your point in posting that graph instead of just dropping it and telling the rest of us how dumb we are for disagreeing with you? Phone posting so I didn't go too much into it but yeah it's pretty much what was already said. Degree havers are relatively priveleged and while everyone should be able to get educared and many might need help, focusing so much to the point of voting for Trump if he promises to freeze student debt seems... imprudent. VitalSigns posted:Do you know what a median is
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 03:13
|
|
|
Someone tell Manchin that taxation can literally be used to cause deflation if you need to remove excess number. Got to love being simultaneously against taxes, inflation, deflation, and debt.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 03:13
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:Given that climate change is as much as technical challenge as a sociopolitical how do you propose we do that exactly given that the world is dependent today on fossil fuels from electricity, plastics, medicine including fertilizer? I have no loving clue, but we're going to have to figure it out sooner rather than later. Fortunately it's not up to me, a single voter, to figure it out. But it still needs to happen. As far your examples, those are the token measures. They're just bailing water compared to the massive changes that need to be made. Are you claiming that this is good enough?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 03:18
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:Yes it's the center of the income distribution. So the brain surgeon has no impact there. mobby_6kl posted:Of course there will be outlier baristas with theology PhDs but they should be firstly covered by programs for low-income people rather than for degree holders I don't think SNAP covers student loan payments. Maybe education should be free, because an educated populace is good for democracy and civil society, because the accumulated knowledge of our civilization is the birthright of every man and woman, and because a system where people have to take on $100,000 of debt and then gamble on getting a good job to get out of a lifetime of debt slavery is insane. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 03:36 on Nov 14, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 03:23
|
|
|
mobby_6kl posted:Yes it's the center of the income distribution. So the brain surgeon has no impact there. Of course there will be outlier baristas with theology PhDs but they should be firstly covered by programs for low-income people rather than for degree holders Why not just forgive everyone's debt instead of whatever your plan is?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 03:23
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Could you explain how that's relevant If you want me to argue against debt relief, I can’t oblige: there should be debt relief, and education should have a nominal cost at best. Do I think student debt relief is more important than e.g. making sure everybody has good health insurance, or increasing minimum wage to $15 or so? No, I think there are much more precarious groups than student-debt-havers. Do I think that debt relief is a political slam dunk? Unless it’s combined with some of the other programs, at this point, I think it’ll be detrimental, and I’m not convinced Republicans won’t be able to reinstate it if cancelled merely via EO. Of course not passing it is going to be detrimental for Dems, too. Same as not passing $15 minimum wage laws, or any other broken promises
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 03:25
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:I have no loving clue, but we're going to have to figure it out sooner rather than later. Fortunately it's not up to me, a single voter, to figure it out. But it still needs to happen. If you have "no loving clue" then what do you expect? The technology required to transition to net zero literally doesn't exist, only exists as fancy expensive prototypes or not at scale. I would strongly suggest you do some reading on the energy transition, humanity is moving from biofuels, to coal, to oil & gas to renewables w/ hydro and nuclear. Fister Roboto posted:As far your examples, those are the token measures. They're just bailing water compared to the massive changes that need to be made. Are you claiming that this is good enough? Why do you believe regulating methane one of the most of powerful greenhouse gases, stopping drilling in ANWAR to the largest public funding of Climate Change research is a token measure? Fister Roboto posted:Are you claiming that this is good enough? No, I am not. What gives you that impression?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 03:32
|
|
|
morothar posted:If you want me to argue against debt relief, I can’t oblige: there should be debt relief, and education should have a nominal cost at best. morothar posted:Do I think student debt relief is more important than e.g. making sure everybody has good health insurance, or increasing minimum wage to $15 or so? No, I think there are much more precarious groups than student-debt-havers. I don't think anyone is saying it's more important, merely that pausing student loan payments is, unlike minimum wage and a public option, directly within the president's control so refusing to do it is inexcusable and a blatant "gently caress you" without even the fig leaf of "oh gosh I wanna really I do but oooh that Manchin dunnit again!" that we get with minimum wage and public option. But I agree the argument is academic because as you say the Democrats aren't going to do any of those things either, and obviously the man who invented eternal student loan debt in the first place isn't interested in providing any more relief than he thinks he has to. If Republicans restart the payments that is unfortunate but can't be helped, and I fail to see how it's better to beat them to the punch, end ther moratorium ourselves, and gently caress people over before Republicans even get a chance to. Even from a purely cynical realpolitik perspective let them take the political hit rather than pissing off the young people ourselves (the young people who by the way, we're always told will ensure 100 years of Democratic dominance because demographics are destiny)
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 03:34
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:I just don't think it's relevant how rich the rich degree holders are, it has literally nothing to do with debt relief for poor degree holders. It sounds like an emotional guilt-by-association kind of argument. Yeah, it’s only relevant with respect to my musings on what net impact passing debt relief via EO will have in terms of votes. In that context, it’s relevant because it’s going to be fantastically easy to rile up lower-education, lower-voters. And that’s the chunk of the electorate the Democrats have been losing for good reasons, and Republicans gaining for bad reasons. VitalSigns posted:
Absolutely. Restarting payments under Biden is idiotic. So is getting SALT back. Absolute heads-up-their-arses numbfuckery. Worse even, it’s gleefully punching yourself in you balls. Repeatedly.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 03:51
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:If you have "no loving clue" then what do you expect? The technology required to transition to net zero literally doesn't exist, only exists as fancy expensive prototypes or not at scale. I would strongly suggest you do some reading on the energy transition, humanity is moving from biofuels, to coal, to oil & gas to renewables w/ hydro and nuclear. If they're not good enough then why do you think that the Dems are "night and day" from the Republicans on climate? That implies to me that they're polar opposites. If you don't think they're good enough, then why did you disagree with the OP saying that both parties are opposed to the changes that are actually good enough?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 03:53
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:If they're not good enough then why do you think that the Dems are "night and day" from the Republicans on climate? That implies to me that they're polar opposites. One group is recognizes climate change is problem and is making an effort fight climate change. The other one not only doesn't recognize climate change but it actively making it worse. The GOP and the Republican party is literal committing planetary arson. Fister Roboto posted:If you don't think they're good enough, then why did you disagree with the OP saying that both parties are opposed to the changes that are actually good enough? See my post above, progress is progress. Tackling climate change is a an issue that'll take decades and the actions that liberal, progressives and even Democrats will make a real impact. These actions will lead to lead to a fair, equitable society that addresses issues like climate change and inequality. Now that I've answered your questions, please address mine especially where you stated that recent efforts to reduce emissions are merely token efforts. Why do you believe that? Gucci Loafers fucked around with this message at 04:23 on Nov 14, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 04:08
|
|
|
morothar posted:Absolutely. Restarting payments under Biden is idiotic. So is getting SALT back. Absolute heads-up-their-arses numbfuckery. Worse even, it’s gleefully punching yourself in you balls. Repeatedly. If the choice is to see the democrats as being completely incompetent or just working exactly as they intend to toward an audience that isn't me, I'm more inclined to think it's the latter. Their actions suggest that the democrats don't exist to win elections so much as they exist to enrich themselves and those who enrich them. Electorally there is little benefit in allowing SALT deductions or student loans to restart repayment, but fiscally there is a great deal to be had there. Since that's more or less the pattern with basically everything they do, I don't think it's idiocy that drives their bad choices. Or to be more blunt about it; the democrats are willing to take the hit here for younger people hating them for restarting the gently caress barrel because they want the money from the owners of said barrel to go to their interests, rather than republicans getting it later. I understand that electoralism is popular, but I do hope even among people who believe in it that they understand that the democrats aren't their friends. Even in the best case, they are custodians of capital interests that can maybe be negotiated with, but from my perspective the vast majority of things they seem willing to actually fight for paint them as people who are distinctly not on my side. Basically ever. e: fixed missing words. Ershalim fucked around with this message at 04:57 on Nov 14, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 04:14
|
|
|
Crosby B. Alfred posted:One group is recognizes climate change is problem and is making an effort fight climate change. The other one not only doesn't recognize climate change but it actively making it worse. The GOP and the Republican party is literal committing planetary arson. I think they're token efforts because they're not good enough, but they want voters to think that they're good enough. If you agree with me that they're not good enough, then why are we having this argument?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 04:25
|
|
|
Fister Roboto posted:I think they're token efforts because they're not good enough, but they want voters to think that they're good enough. If you agree with me that they're not good enough, then why are we having this argument? Because the actions that are being taken aren't token efforts - all of these things will have a real world meaningful impact but that doesn't mean this is the end-all-be-all of climate change innovation, legislation, regulation, etc.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 04:29
|
|
|
A tsunami's coming. The Republicans deny it exists, the Democrats sell you an umbrella.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 04:35
|
|
|
Byzantine posted:A tsunami's coming. The Republicans deny it exists, the Democrats sell you an umbrella. As I type this, there is a 20 year old black woman working at a McDonald's somewhere in this country who is destined to be America's Stalin. and we're totally going to deserve whatever she does to us. interpret this whatever way you feel is necessary
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 06:40
|
|
|
Blarghalt posted:As I type this, there is a 20 year old black woman working at a McDonald's somewhere in this country who is destined to be America's Stalin. america is like 100x more likely to get a hitler than a stalin lmao
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 07:17
|
|
|
One follows the other
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 07:21
|
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:Except the post didn't say those things. Here it is in its entirety, and no, it hasn't been clarified since: It's not gaslighting - "Rule of Law" is not synonymous with the concept of laws, and hasn't been since it's inception. It's a specific ideological idea of how a system of laws should work and how much we should value the processes of how the law works as compared to the results. His objection, which is quite traditional, isn't that Trump and Rittenhouse broke the law - it's that the "Rule of Law" framework is incapable of stopping them. You can see this very easily if you view the issue from the perspective of someone (like me!!) who is religious: I'm a Muslim and adhere to a series of religious laws. This law is extensive enough to govern what I eat, what I dress, what kind of entertainment I pursue, etc. I have explicitly written to Muslim legal jurists to get opinions on the permissiveness of things that some people would consider quite silly. There are situations where it would be trivial for me to break the law (speeding, or pirating movies) where I refrain from doing out of a respect for the law. Clearly, I am not opposed to the concept of laws. However, it doesn't follow that just because I fetishize law, I also like the "Rule of Law." Rule of law is about process and completely separate from morality, while the religious laws I follow are intimately tied to my community's sense of morality. In what situation would I want to value mere process above the laws of God? Especially when that process comes pre-tainted, being conducted by compromise between Democrats (eh) and Republicans (lol.) In what situation is a series of processes created by a committee of Republicans, or a Republican supreme court, more valuable and trustworthy than the processes created and maintained by a religious jurist that I know personally and trust? "Ah, but not everyone agrees with your communities sense of morality!" True! However, not everyone agrees with the priors of "Rule of Law" (that process is valuable enough that it's worth protecting no matter the context) either. Shariah is not a default position (except, of course, for animals - who are all good Muslims), but neither is "Rule of Law" - both of us exist in a place where, if we want people to agree with our ideological project, we should offer them reasons to agree with us, and try to persuade them. In this case, that dude's post is clearly something you could argue with and try to persuade him: Why should we embrace the concept of a sacred process if it leaves us vulnerable to Trumps and Rittenhouses? That's not gaslighting - that's the opening to a conversation, which, if you are truly devoted to the idea that Rule of Law is a more important and viable conception of justice than any other, should be an excellent opportunity to gain another convert.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 07:25
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Are you loving with me or do you really have no clue what "everything" refers to in the sentence "Trump getting off scott free for everything". I think everything refers to all the crimes, do you think it refers to something else like serving Wendy's at the White House? In the sentence "The rule of law is dogshit, and leads to things like [...] trump getting off scott free for everything" "everything" can't mean laws broken because arguing Trump should be punished for the laws he's broken is literally an argument *for* the rule of law. The argument isn't that laws are selectively enforced, or that the rule of law isn't being followed. That would actually be reasonable. "The rule of law is dogshit" is a crazy thing to say if you're upset about laws not being enforced. But there are similar from other folks about how judicial rulings that don't go the way they want should just be ignored, so there really *is* that argument being made. It drives me crazy when, in this thread, someone says something crazy, gets called on it, and the response is "nobody's saying that". I'm not saying the poster who said the rule of law is bullshit is gaslighting. I'm saying Vital Signs is when they say that the poster is complaining about Trump and Riddenhouse breaking the law. I think your interpretation of the original "dogshit" post is likely correct: that they think the "Rule of Law" framework is incapable of stopping these bad actors. Just so we're all using the same definition here, I think the first paragraph on Wikipedia is reasonable: Wikipedia posted:the principle whereby all members of a society (including those in government) are considered equally subject to publicly disclosed legal codes and processes." My argument is that the US (and every government, really) falls far short of this, but that as the principle is something we should be striving to be closer to not moving further away from DeadlyMuffin fucked around with this message at 08:12 on Nov 14, 2021 |
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 07:28
|
|
|
camoseven posted:Depends on what the Dems offer me Ok, so what would The Dems have to offer you to keep you from voting Trump in '24 if he ran on a student debt relief platform?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 08:00
|
|
|
How are u posted:Ok, so what would The Dems have to offer you to keep you from voting Trump in '24 if he ran on a student debt relief platform? Nothing because he's a fascist and 4 years of him showed me he's the biggest liar in politics. I just wouldn't vote.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 08:06
|
|
|
Epic High Five posted:The best example of this, if you're looking for one, is probably Perry getting a friend of Trump appointment to DOE and then being told by actual leadership in the department that if he guts everything and fucks around firing people and appointing failchildren and Liberty U law grads it means that probably literally ever single living thing on this planet dies, so he ended up just doing a couple pressers and buying a pair of glasses so people thought he was smart while actually interfering with almost nothing Good articles on this or any of the other examples?
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 09:32
|
|
|
How are u posted:Ok, so what would The Dems have to offer you to keep you from voting Trump in '24 if he ran on a student debt relief platform? a better question to ask is "what would the dems have to offer you to actually give a poo poo about the 2024 election?" for me it's, uh, huh. well, to be completely honest another 2k in checks would go a long way!
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 09:37
|
|
|
Zotix posted:Nothing because he's a fascist and 4 years of him showed me he's the biggest liar in politics. I just wouldn't vote. Yup, this. One-third or more of all eligible voters don’t vote. They’re disproportionately poor and POC. “What would the Dems have to offer to keep you from voting for Trump” is absolutely the wrong question to be asking. The right question is, “Why can’t the Dems turn out a huge chunk of voters that tend to lean in their direction?”
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 10:17
|
|
|
Majorian posted:Yup, this. One-third or more of all eligible voters don’t vote. They’re disproportionately poor and POC. “What would the Dems have to offer to keep you from voting for Trump” is absolutely the wrong question to be asking. The right question is, “Why can’t the Dems turn out a huge chunk of voters that tend to lean in their direction?” Imo it’s because the Dems are actually very good at convincing people of their general argument about how progress can be made through politics, it just doesn’t have the result that they would like. They spend an enormous amount of effort messaging the idea that they have progressive goals and truly want to change the country, but also that what they offer when in power is the most that can be feasibly be done; that other proposals are too extreme to be realistic; that incremental change is the only way to make change at all; that they are skillfully triangulating and reading the room and delivering what can realistically be delivered. But the result is that a lot of people hear that, listen to what the Democrats are saying they’ll actually be able to do if elected, believe the Democrats are telling the truth, and respond “not worth my time, then.”
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 10:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 26, 2024 10:50 |
|
|
DeadlyMuffin posted:How is quoting what someone literally said a strawman? Becase multiple people have pointed out to you that we don't think you are interpreting that post correctly, and you're doing the most extreme reading possible. Further, even if your reading were correct, it doesn't seem productive to insist that we continue to discuss "society-with-no-laws" when no one currently posting in the thread holds that position. If Pamela pops back in to say that they are actually advocating for a society with no laws, then discussing that would make sense, but until then, you are fighting a strawman. People can disagree with you on how to read a statement without it being "gaslighting". TheDisreputableDog posted:Democrats aren’t on the right side of “playing by established rules” Yes, I tend to agree. I think Democrats care very deeply about the rules when they can be used as excuses to not do things they already didn't want to do, but in this case I was arguing with someone who clearly doesn't think that, so I was trying to make the argument that even if Democrats were just trying to do their best, their strategy would still be counterproductive. atriptothebeach posted:You are wrong to applaud your governor. They literally said that on this particular issue, DeSantis had done a good thing, even if he is overall a bad governor. It is not uncommon to see exactly the same logic being applied to Democrats in this thread, consider how people react when Biden does a good thing and someone counters with any of the bad things he has done. Please stop hyperventilating about terrorism, if you think they were actually advocating for mass killings you could just report the post. Having seen LaLD's other posts, I think it is more reasonable to assume they were saying the American state is rotten, not that large parts of the population should be killed. Crosby B. Alfred posted:Why do you believe regulating methane one of the most of powerful greenhouse gases, stopping drilling in ANWAR to the largest public funding of Climate Change research is a token measure? I think mentioning methane when defending Democratic climate policy is really weird. This wasn't that long ago https://apnews.com/article/business-5dfbc1aa17701ae219239caad0bfefb2. Crosby B. Alfred posted:See my post above, progress is progress. Tackling climate change is a an issue that'll take decades and the actions that liberal, progressives and even Democrats will make a real impact. These actions will lead to lead to a fair, equitable society that addresses issues like climate change and inequality. Which part of the last 30 years would lead you to believe that this could be what the future looks like, let alone that the Democratic Party would be the vehicle to get us there? Democratic leaders have said, on camera, that they do not want a fair and equitable society.
|
|
#
?
Nov 14, 2021 10:49
|
|