No, I accept things that have overwhelming evidence -- like a spherical Earth, like that the holocaust happened, like evolution, like gravity, like climate change. Economic or sociology theories have nothing to do with this, although there are some solid ideas even in those fields as well.

Now you're just babbling nonsense. Why "hypothesis" are you talking about? There's overwhelming evidence for the effects climate change will have. It's only a matter of degree, which will depend on whether we act or not. We're already seeing the effects, which are WORSE than the scientists predicted years ago.
— Xtrix

No, there isn't. Because it has not happened yet. — h060tu

It has happened, it's happening already. Look at the last 10 hottest years on record. This year is shaping up to be one of the hottest as well.

Not what might be the case based on models, predictions, hand waving, media personalities, documentaries, alarmism and a autistic 16 year old. — h060tu

Typical climate denial lines. Yawn.

No, there's evidence to back them up -- overwhelming evidence which, once it's explained to you, is more than convincing. All you have to do is make a little effort. Even a simple wikipedia search is fine. Or are they part of the global conspiracy too?
— Xtrix

Right, because Google, Bill Gates, the Rockefellers, the Chinese Communist Party and several others who donate to Wikipedia don't have any influence at all over the content that might be adduced there. None. — h060tu

LOL. Oh, so they ARE a part of the global conspiracy? Interesting. Tell me more, Dr. Science.

You've already given yourself away buddy. You've proven you only read fringe bullshit about climate change. This is yet another example.
— Xtrix

No. I've read NOAA, I actually have it bookmarked LOL I just don't believe your claims because you have absolutely nothing to substantiate them. Only rhetoric. — h060tu

Glad you've "read NOAA." Was that the book? lol.

That actual study says nothing about antropogenic climate change. It talks about climate change without qualification. When you actually break down the study into the various ways in which scientists think what is causing climate change, the numbers go way below 70%. I know the study, and it doesn't corroborate anthropogenic climate change. — h060tu

What study might that be, exactly?

No, they're worth my time. I've read both, in fact. I've given sources that go over their points thoroughly. I'd be glad to go over their lies here as well.
— Xtrix

No you haven't. — h060tu

I haven't what? Jesus you're a horrible writer.

Bottom line -- 97% (that's misleading -- it's closer to 100%) of climatologists accept climate change is a fact, that we're the cause of it, and that we need to take major steps to do something about it. But you go with Lindzen, by all means.
— Xtrix

No they don't. That number is from a comic book writer. It's fallacious. — h060tu

You've already given yourself away buddy. You've proven you only read fringe bullshit about climate change. This is yet another example.

The 97% number was popularized by two articles, the first by Naomi Oreskes, now Professor of Science History and Affiliated Professor of Earth and Planetary Sciences at Harvard University, and the second by a group of authors led by John Cook, the Climate Communication Fellow for the Global Change Institute at The University of Queensland.

It's been attacked by climate deniers like yourself, but later studies have corroborated it. It's based on published articles on climate change, thousands of them. There have also been extensive polling done. Even if the number is 90%, which is extremely unlikely, to have this level of consensus in science is rare. It really tells you something about the level of evidence.

But that's fine -- you ignore NASA, NOAA, the IPCC, the Royal Academy, the entire MIT climatology department (besides Lindzen), etc.. and keep on believing whatever you want to believe.

I never "swallowed" anything. His view is one view. IPCC is another. — h060tu

Lol. Right, just like creationists have "one side" and "evolutionists" have another view. Or, better, flat-earthers have a view and NASA has another view. Both totally plausible.

For that matter, the homeless man screaming about Jesus has a view too. Maybe you should cite him as a source?

Until there is evidence that can establish the likelihood of one hypothesis over the other, then there is underdetermination of hypothesis. — h060tu

Now you're just babbling nonsense. Why "hypothesis" are you talking about? There's overwhelming evidence for the effects climate change will have. It's only a matter of degree, which will depend on whether we act or not. We're already seeing the effects, which are WORSE than the scientists predicted years ago.

You assume that because I question your assumptions, that I am a "denier" I am not a "denier" I am Agnostic on the question. — h060tu

On what question?

I don't know, and neither do you and neither do they. There's a just a lot of claims, and nothing to back them up. — h060tu

No, there's evidence to back them up -- overwhelming evidence which, once it's explained to you, is more than convincing. All you have to do is make a little effort. Even a simple wikipedia search is fine. Or are they part of the global conspiracy too?

No, they're very alarmed indeed. Rightfully so.
— Xtrix

They're really not. — h060tu

And you definitely know, because you're so very informed.

So I think I see where this non-discussion is going. More mouthing off by science ignoramuses who think they know more than people that have studied this their entire lives because they've spent a few minutes thinking about the subject. It's embarrassing.
— Xtrix

Yeah, that's what you're doing. — h060tu

No, I've studied this for years actually.

I cited two climate scientists who agree with me. — h060tu

Yes, you've found two climate deniers who agree with you. There are a handful of others, too. I can find them for you if you'd like. But I asked for credible sources.

LOL So scientists you disagree with are not worth your time, only ones that already confirm your preconceived bias. That's amazing. — h060tu

No, they're worth my time. I've read both, in fact. I've given sources that go over their points thoroughly. I'd be glad to go over their lies here as well.

Yeah, this conversation is over. You're just a propagandist, an ideological robot. That's fine, but I'm wasting my time talking. My time is important, yours not so much. — h060tu

Yes, smart move. Word of advice: next time, keep your mouth shut when you don't know what you're talking about. A little research goes a long way.

Bottom line -- 97% (that's misleading -- it's closer to 100%) of climatologists accept climate change is a fact, that we're the cause of it, and that we need to take major steps to do something about it. But you go with Lindzen, by all means.

The government is not a source. There was a "source" about WMDs in Iraq. It's fake. I don't the government "data" on anything. Economics, WMDs, their secret programs and operations destroying other people's countries, creating false flags, lying to the American people, infiltrating groups and manipulating events, mind control programs. Yeah, no. I don't trust the government "data" unless it's methodology is sound. If the methodology is sound, I'll believe it. But I don't take government data at face value. — h060tu

The IPCC is not the US government, it's a number of research institutes and thousands of scientists.

Good to see you're very skeptical about things, yet swallow the bullshit of Lindzen wholesale. Interesting. :roll:

Richard Lindzen at MIT. — h060tu

LOL. Oh, what a shocker. A well known (and well used by deniers) "skeptic." This is your example? Pathetic. Maybe read up on these people before spouting nonsense:

https://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_Richard_Lindzen.htm

https://insideclimatenews.org/news/06032017/climate-change-denial-scientists-richard-lindzen-mit-donald-trump

A number of his lies and distortions are well-documented, point by point.

I'm not an expert, but he is. And I haven't studied climate science as a layman, in years. So I don't really want to have a debate on this. — h060tu

Good, very wise to keep your mouth shut about things you don't understand.

Another book I read was by a Swedish guy named Bjorn Lomborg — h060tu

So two climate change deniers. This is what you read? Not the IPCC, not NASA, not NOAA, not the thousands of climatologists out there studying this -- you quote two well known liars (Lomborg less so, although his distortions are incredible as well -- although he's been promoted by imbeciles like Jordan Peterson).

I'm not an expert, but there's a lot of alarmism going on. Elizabeth Kolbert, who wrote The Sixth Extinction a massive alarmist tome, is a journalist, not a scientist. There are other such books and misinfo/disinfo out there. — h060tu

I agree -- Kolbert shouldn't be view as a credible source either. But it's ironic you say that many books of misinformation is out there, after just citing two yourself.

Well, there's a scientist at MIT who's name currently escapes me — h060tu

One scientist who you don't remember.

Your article was about CO2. — h060tu

Can't read.

CO2 emissions are not even remotely the only, or even the primary driver of climate change. — h060tu

Spinner of straw.

those number of projections are based on completely faulty and speculative models of how climate has evolved — h060tu

Most climate data is based on tree rings and glacial mass, — h060tu

Ridiculous claims without any evidence or sources. This last one is especially egregious.

So I think I see where this non-discussion is going. More mouthing off by science ignoramuses who think they know more than people that have studied this their entire lives because they've spent a few minutes thinking about the subject. It's embarrassing.

Most climate data is based on tree rings and glacial mass,
— h060tu

Wrong. — Xtrix

And in fact, the only real good solid data on climate that we have is only since the Industrial Revolution.
— h060tu

Completely wrong. — Xtrix

Completely correct. — h060tu

No, completely wrong. Saying the "only real good solid data" is embarrassing. There's a number of excellent sources of data on the climate, which you would know if you deigned to read anything about the subject.

https://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/

Lol. Right, and you know because you're a climatologist. Please explain where these "models" go wrong. I myself would love to know -- as I'm sure most climate scientists would as well.
— Xtrix

They already know. Most climate scientists aren't alarmists. — h060tu

No, they're very alarmed indeed. Rightfully so.

No one is arguing this. Pure straw-man.
— Xtrix

Not really. — h060tu

Yes, really. No one -- not myself, not anything I've cited, is arguing CO2 is the only driver of climate change. It's a complete straw man.

Your article was about CO2. — h060tu

No, it isn't. CO2 is one factor involved, yes. There are others -- including energy sources, energy consumption, climate policy, etc. etc.

What "actual scientists" are you referring to, exactly? Please name one.
— Xtrix

Well, there's a scientist at MIT who's name currently escapes me, but I'll gladly look for his name for you. — h060tu

Please do, and if you can point me to where he says we'll "easily survive."

No, they won't "tell you" because there are a number of projections which depend on what we do now.
— Xtrix

Yes, and those number of projections are based on completely faulty and speculative models of how climate has evolved. — h060tu

Lol. Right, and you know because you're a climatologist. Please explain where these "models" go wrong. I myself would love to know -- as I'm sure most climate scientists would as well.

Most climate data is based on tree rings and glacial mass, — h060tu

Wrong.

And in fact, the only real good solid data on climate that we have is only since the Industrial Revolution. — h060tu

Completely wrong.

They can, and they have.
— Xtrix

CO2 emissions are not even remotely the only, or even the primary driver of climate change. And in fact, not even among greenhouse gases.

CO2's role is very overplayed. Methane gas might be worse. — h060tu

No one is arguing this. Pure straw-man.

Yes, methane is a more potent greenhouse gas, but doesn't last nearly as long as CO2. There's also plenty of other factors of climate change, as you mentioned. Deforestation, agricultural practices, energy sources, industry, etc. All major contributors. What's your point?

If other countries can do it, so can we
— Xtrix

But they can't do it. — h060tu

They can, and they have.

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/environment/2019/09/climate-change-report-card-co2-emissions/

"If we want to survive?" We'll survive climate change easily. Talk to any climate scientist, like actual ones, not activists, and they'll tell you. Sure, it will have an effect, but it's definitely not the hottest climate in the whole history of the climate, and it's also not cataclysmic. — h060tu

No, they won't "tell you" because there are a number of projections which depend on what we do now. If we do remain with the status quo -- we're toast. Sure, maybe we survive somehow. Maybe some people survive nuclear war too. Not saying much.

Take a look at tipping points and see what happens to food supplies alone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipping_points_in_the_climate_system

https://climate.nasa.gov/effects/

What "actual scientists" are you referring to, exactly? Please name one.

I've changed my mind. "Organizing" and "activism" are stoopid. Better to be a political hobbyist.

But make sure you don't vote Biden, because doing so means you're a sell-out, or that you like the guy. It also won't teach the DNC a very important lesson!

Here's to another 4 years of Donald Trump! (Sure, our kids and grandkids won't have a planet that's habitable, but at least we will have proven a point -- one that requires no mental or physical effort or risk of any kind.)

Joe Biden's policies on the environment vs. Trumps:

The Biden Plan will:

Ensure the U.S. achieves a 100% clean energy economy and reaches net-zero emissions no later than 2050. On day one, Biden will sign a series of new executive orders with unprecedented reach that go well beyond the Obama-Biden Administration platform and put us on the right track. And, he will demand that Congress enacts legislation in the first year of his presidency that: 1) establishes an enforcement mechanism that includes milestone targets no later than the end of his first term in 2025, 2) makes a historic investment in clean energy and climate research and innovation, 3) incentivizes the rapid deployment of clean energy innovations across the economy, especially in communities most impacted by climate change.

Build a stronger, more resilient nation. On day one, Biden will make smart infrastructure investments to rebuild the nation and to ensure that our buildings, water, transportation, and energy infrastructure can withstand the impacts of climate change. Every dollar spent toward rebuilding our roads, bridges, buildings, the electric grid, and our water infrastructure will be used to prevent, reduce, and withstand a changing climate. As President, Biden will use the convening power of government to boost climate resilience efforts by developing regional climate resilience plans, in partnership with local universities and national labs, for local access to the most relevant science, data, information, tools, and training.

Rally the rest of the world to meet the threat of climate change. Climate change is a global challenge that requires decisive action from every country around the world. Joe Biden knows how to stand with America’s allies, stand up to adversaries, and level with any world leader about what must be done. He will not only recommit the United States to the Paris Agreement on climate change – he will go much further than that. He will lead an effort to get every major country to ramp up the ambition of their domestic climate targets. He will make sure those commitments are transparent and enforceable, and stop countries from cheating by using America’s economic leverage and power of example. He will fully integrate climate change into our foreign policy and national security strategies, as well as our approach to trade.

Stand up to the abuse of power by polluters who disproportionately harm communities of color and low-income communities. Vulnerable communities are disproportionately impacted by the climate emergency and pollution. The Biden Administration will take action against fossil fuel companies and other polluters who put profit over people and knowingly harm our environment and poison our communities’ air, land, and water, or conceal information regarding potential environmental and health risks. The Biden plan will ensure that communities across the country from Flint, Michigan to Harlan, Kentucky to the New Hampshire Seacoast have access to clean, safe drinking water. And he’ll make sure the development of solutions is an inclusive, community-driven process.
Fulfill our obligation to workers and communities who powered our industrial revolution and subsequent decades of economic growth. This is support they’ve earned for fueling our country’s industrial revolution and decades of economic growth. We’re not going to leave any workers or communities behind. —

Eh, sounds good but could be just a bunch of nice words.

Now Trump's climate change plan: "It's a Chinese hoax."

Trump's environmental record so far:

https://www.nationalgeographic.com/news/2017/03/how-trump-is-changing-science-environment/


Just for anyone still wondering if there's a discernible "difference" between the two candidates.

"If Trump is re-elected, it's an indescribable disaster. It means that the policies of the last four years, which have been extremely destructive to the American population and the world, will be continued and probably accelerated. What this will mean for health is bad enough. What this means for the environment and the threat of nuclear war (which no one is talking about, but which is extremely serious) is indescribable.

Suppose Biden is elected. I would anticipate it would be essentially a continuation of Obama -- nothing very great, but at least not totally destructive, and with opportunities for an organized public to change what's being done and to impose pressures.

It's common to say now that the Sanders campaigned failed. I think that's a mistake. I think it was an extraordinary success. Completely shifted the arena of debate and discussion, issues that were unthinkable a couple of years ago are now right in the middle of attention. The worst crime he committed in the eyes of the establishment is not the policies he was proposing, it was the fact that he was able to inspire popular movements (which had already been developing --e.g., Occupy, Black Lives Matter, many others) and turned them into an activist movement which doesn't just show up every couple years to pull a lever and then go home, but applies constant pressure and constant activism.

That could effect a Biden administration. We've seen some striking examples. Take the Green New Deal. A couple of years ago that was an object of ridicule if it was mentioned at all. Now it's part of the general agenda. Why? Activist engagement. Especially the Sunrise Movement [...]

With a Biden presidency there would be if not a strongly sympathetic administration at least one that can be reached, can be pressured -- and that's very important. There's a very good labor historian, Erik Loomis, who's studied the efforts by working people to institute changes in the society...he's made an interesting point: these efforts have succeeded when there was a tolerant or sympathetic administration, not when there wasn't. That's a big -- one of many -- enormous differences between Trump, a sociopath, and Biden -- who's pretty empty, can push him one way or another.

This is the most crucial election in human history, literally. Another four years of Trump and we're in deep trouble."


The above is from Noam Chomsky.

But what does he (or Sanders) know anyway? Better to teach the DNC a lesson (they didn't learn the first time) through voting, thus winning on two fronts: (1) DNC doesn't change at all, and (2) taking out our frustrations by pushing a button without having to engage in that messy "activism" business -- as that is risky and takes sustained effort. The choice is obvious -- to hell with the world! Let is burn. At least our "point" will be made and we'll feel righteous. Because only suckers and sellouts like Bernie Sanders and Noam Chomsky will vote for Biden.

:roll:

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=htQKz-nB2Dg

Let me know when you conduct this experiment. I wish you the best of luck, but I won't hold my breath. Personally I think it's a waste of time. But in any case, the point stands: there's no evidence for your claim. So why say it? That's not scientifically sound either.
— Xtrix

Why ask me for an appeal to authority when you can just dismiss it as an appeal to authority? — VagabondSpectre

That's why I said an authority that provides evidence which I could check.

You opened the post by bringing up an ill-defined anecdote about how scientists say their god is nature (do you need me to quote everything line by line?), — VagabondSpectre

As I've shown repeatedly, that's not what I said. I mentioned someone once saying "I believe in God, I just call it nature" to demonstrate the place "nature" plays in modern science. It wasn't to be taken literally as scientists believing in a "God of nature."

What do you think scientists meant by "nature" and "god", and why is that relevant to why natural philosophy dominates every other understanding in today's world? — VagabondSpectre

Natural philosophy is what science used to be called. The point is that nature is what science studies. So the question is a good one: "What is nature" (or what is meant by "nature)? That's exactly what I'm exploring here.

Isn't it possible that modern science is not dominated by Cartesian or natural philosophy? — VagabondSpectre

Cartesianism, sure. But science is natural philosophy, so I don't see how it could or couldn't be "dominated" by it.

No one can offer a definition that shows Aristarchus wasn't doing science but Galileo was, for example, so who cares?
— Xtrix

Why do you get to get to ask me to prove an unending series of negatives? First you'll goad me into showing Aristarchus wasn't doing science, then you can just keep pulling random names out of a hat until I get too tired to carry on... — VagabondSpectre

"Unending"? I keep bringing it up because you continually fail to address it, and it's important. As far as "random names":I've mentioned Aristarchus over and over again. That's not random name-dropping. It's a simple question: Was he doing "science" or not?

If some ancient philosopher based their epistemological framework around the predictive power of their mathematical or explanatory models, then maybe they employing the modern scientific method to some extent. But really, who cares? — VagabondSpectre

Exactly: who cares? Thus, who really cares about a fuzzy "modern method" in the first place? If it's modern, yet Aristarchus was doing it, is it still modern?

The experimental evidence is in our face phenomenon... — VagabondSpectre


That's not what you said. You said:

You're looking at it backward actually. QM and GR are "in our face" phenomenon that we cannot deny. — VagabondSpectre


So quantum mechanics and general relativity are "experimental evidence" now? That's completely meaningless as well.
— Xtrix

I'm having a hard time comprehending what you're trying to say here. "In our face phenomenon" refers to the experimental observations that force us to accept GR and QM as strong models. — VagabondSpectre

So experimental observations, not GR and QM themselves -- which is meaningless. That's fine. But take a look at what you said: you said "QM and GR are 'in our face phenomenon.'" If that's just a poorly worded sentence, not a big deal. But why continue to argue it?

If you think you have a "gotch'ya" here, you don't. You're just be semantically obtuse or else misunderstanding. — VagabondSpectre

It's not semantics or a misunderstanding, it's a simple fact of what you said, which is completely meaningless. To repeat, again: "QM and GR are 'in our face phenomenon.'" That's MEANINGLESS. To say the data, the evidence, the observations and experiments are "in our face phenomena" is one thing -- to say the theories themselves are is meaningless.

There's no "gotchya" here. I get what you mean now, but before it wasn't at all clear. All that's required in that case is to simply say "I typed that wrong" and move on. Yet since you continue to argue it, I'll continue to as well: the statement was meaningless. Quantum mechanics is not "in your face phenomenon," it's an explanatory theory.

No, you contrasted "rationality" by conflating it with "rationalism" (hence why you mentioned Descartes) which is completely wrong. Inductive reasoning already assumes reason (it's right there in the word), and hence rationality - ratio is Latin, which translates as "reason."
— Xtrix

Have you ever heard of the "etymological fallacy"? It's sort of similar to equivocation; definitely an excellent source of wanton misinterpretation... — VagabondSpectre

There's no misinterpretation. You're simply conflating the two terms.

You're trying to win the argument by somehow showing that I am technically incorrect, when you have not seem to understood or addressed the statement I have made. Even if my critique of Descartes has been unfair (not giving him enough credit as a scientist, I guess), you're still not actually addressing my position; you're just rejecting it out of hand. — VagabondSpectre

What argument?

Science uses reason, rationality, logic, etc. That's not a controversial or "technical" point and it's not trying to "win" anything. I doubt anyone is reading any of this, and I don't care about "winning" anyway -- it's a silly way to look at conversations.

Your argument has been that science is special, especially modern science, and is distinct from other activities by use of the "inductive method." I've heard this argument many times before -- it's not unreasonable. It has a long history. But you're hardly making a strong case, I'm afraid. This isn't ad hominem.

It's especially difficult to explore that position when I get bogged down in corrections which I shouldn't have to correct -- whether about rationality or about data/theory or about Aristarchus's science.

Once again, just to be clear, modern science employs an inherently inductive method to actually confirm and usefully deploy its models in the real world; that's what has let it advance so much compared to less strictly focused schools — VagabondSpectre

So this is how you present an argument, by simply repeating yourself over and over without evidence? Fine. I've already shown, multiple times, why the above statement is completely wrong. Obviously you don't agree, and that's fine. Like I said before, I don't care if there really turns out to be a special method or not. Maybe someone will show me one day that there is.

If I were you though, in the future I'd watch words like "advance" and "progress." That's value-laden. We've advanced as a species quite a lot, in many ways. So if it's a matter of rate, how do we measure this? You've proposed some experiments to find out, and I welcome you to it. In the meantime, it's just empty, unconvincing statements.

So what is the point of this thread again? I know you feel you have been amply clear, but just indulge me. — VagabondSpectre

I don't feel that way, no. You prove me wrong over and over again in that respect.

The point of this thread is to explore the Greek understanding of being ('phusis') and to trace the evolution from this soil to the modern world (and the ontology of modern science).

"Nature" and "physics" have their etymological roots in the word "phusis." Science in Galileo's time was called "natural philosophy" (the philosophy of nature). Modern scientists often claim (though it's true this is only from what I've heard and read, not based on a survey of any kind) that they study nature (which I didn't think was a controversial point) and so it's worth asking what that means now as well.

So the connection goes: phusis -> naturalism, naturalism -> scientific practice? In what regard is phusis a basis for scientific practice if it bears some connection to the current ontology of science? — fdrake

Ontological basis. You're right, that may not have been clear initially, but that's what I'm talking about. Not scientific practice.

Just having fun. Dickless means well, I'm sure. But I have low tolerance for people who outright refuse to learn.

The regulation of financing regulates the speech. — Hanover

Yes, the "speech" of buying elections. Brilliant.

I actually went to the Biden site where he lists out his positions. If I had to pick what I didn't particularly like, it would relate to raising taxes specifically on the wealthy and corporations, because I'm tired of the class warfare, which is how this usually plays out. He wants to study the idea of reparations, which I find horribly polarizing and unjust. That alone will cost him my vote. He had an entirely hands off stance with China, and I do see them as a threat and concern. I'm not in principle opposed to tariffs as he is. I didn't like his idea of raising teacher's salaries, as I don't follow how the federal government should have a hand in that very (very very) local issue. He's in favor of 2 years of free college education, which in principle sounds good, but that sounds again like a state issue, considering different state institutions charge differently and private colleges are much more expensive. I'm also opposed to campaign finance reform because I'm close to an absolutist on free speech. His objections to drilling for oil I largely disagree with. — Hanover

"Absolutist on free speech" is the reason to be against finance reform for campaigns?

At least I know now to ignore everything you say.

I think you're grossly overestimating what other countries are doing. I live in one of the more progressive countries in the world. It's not enough. Corona lock down will be a joke compared to the costs we will be confronted with once climate change really hits. I've already started looking for a plot of land with enough arable land, a self-sufficient modular home and I'll be advising my kids to study agriculture. — Benkei

There's nowhere to go or hide from climate change. That's pure delusion.

Helping elect Trump all but guarantees we're going over the edge. We have to make our decisions with this in mind.

DNC lackey. — StreetlightX

Maybe you've learnt one too many lessons from Trump. — StreetlightX

You offer literal contradictions and expect to be taken seriously. What a joke. — StreetlightX

You're a sucker and everyone but you knows it. — StreetlightX

5.1k
Frank was reduced to babbling insults — StreetlightX

Hmmm...

Frank was reduced to babbling insults and this guy reduced to, well, the same.

It's like people who support Biden are totally incapable of coherent argumentation.

Which makes sense. There's no there there. — StreetlightX

Yeah, that's the reason. :)

God they must love people like you. — StreetlightX

Yeah, I'm awful I agree. Now by all means go get Trump elected again.

What about climate change? Do you seriously believe governments and corporations and people are competent enough to make a difference? — h060tu

Yes. If other countries can do it, so can we. Corporations, no -- at least not the ones involved in fossil fuels, of course. And not governments that say it's a Chinese hoax. But otherwise, yes it can be done and has to be done if we want to survive.

I didn't say they had a stellar track record. Is it better than climate change denial? Yes.

Wonderful. It worked well last time, didn't it?
— Xtrix

Yes, much like how the mobilization of hunderds and thousands of people worked so well to gain Bernie the nomination hey? — StreetlightX

You're too stupid to understand, but mobilizing hundreds of thousands of people is exactly what has changed the DNC, regardless of their robbing Bernie from the nomination. But since understanding this requires details and more than a Twitter-length response, I'll just skip it.

Anyone else interested, let me know.

We're talking about actually voting, not rolling over to the DNC.
— Xtrix

Ah yes, not rolling over to the DNC by ... doing exactly what the DNC wants. — StreetlightX

Okay bud, you're right. Your expert adolescent analysis is too overwhelming. Let's teach those DNC guys a lesson they'll never forget and elect TRUMP again! That's the ticket! Worked wonders in 2016 after all. Eventually they'll understand and change. Fingers crossed!

See, the problem is you think this is a difference of persons. It's not. I already explained the power in the USA is held by the respective parties. — Benkei

Everyone knows both parties are beholden to corporate interests. That goes without saying. What you continually ignore is the reality of differences between the two factions of the business party ( Democrats and Republicans), differences which actually do matter. I mentioned an important one: climate change policy. One party denies it's happening, the other wants to take baby steps forward (but not enough). Forget which is more dangerous -- just acknowledge the difference. Then ask who'd be more willing to implement better policies (Trump wants to gut CO2 and methane emisssion regulations remember).

The details matter. It's very easy to just say "It's all the same" -- and maybe allows you to feel satisfied in your superior knowledge of politics -- but doing a little work helps come out of this simplistic Nickelodeon analysis.

It's not meaningful to say "they're both corrupt but he's destroying the environment". So you'll save the environment by losing your privacy. What kind of choice is that? — Benkei

This is exactly what I mean. So assuming that's true (which I don't) -- losing our privacy is equally as important as our species dying off? Fine, then you still vote for Biden -- why? Because Trump will both destroy the environment AND we lose our privacy.

That actually happened, in no small degree thanks to those who sat out or voted third party
— Xtrix

Electoral gaslighting - "look what you made me do". DNC lackey. — StreetlightX

Lol.

It's just a fact, actually: voting third party or sitting out helped elect Trump. That's not "gaslighting," and quite apart from blaming people. I understand their frustrations. I mentioned Bernie supporters voting for Trump in 2016 (roughly 1 in 10, I believe) -- that helped as well.

If you're too dense not to acknowledge these simple facts, that's your business.

Electing Trump isn't holding them accountable.
— Xtrix

Actually that's exactly what it is and no amount of double-speak will change that fact. — StreetlightX

Wonderful. It worked well last time, didn't it?

This is true only for those who believe pushing a button every four years it the most important thing we can do. It isn't. This unfortunate choice should take us a few minutes -- you vote against the worst, case closed. Then you continue pushing for progressive policies, which is the only way things change. Electing Trump makes any chance of these policies happening impossible.

But it makes some of us believe we're really doing something, I guess. I have the unfortunate experience of living in the real world, though. But continue with your super-smart, dime-a-dozen analyses from a different country.

I tell you what's not a hard choice, not bending the knee now when you've got nothing. At the very least, withdraw your support and act like you want something. — Baden

Sure. Who's saying otherwise? We're talking about actually voting, not rolling over to the DNC.

Yes, and in 2016 the Dems didn't listen because they were sure Hillary would win. They ain't so sure now, I can tell you. — Baden

No, electing Trump was tried in 2016. That actually happened, in no small degree thanks to those who sat out or voted third party (or even for Trump, in roughly 8% of Sanders supporters). So what was the outcome? Three years of Trump's destructive policies, and no effect on the DNC.

And you want to try it again.

And: Never ever give something away for free that could be used as leverage to get something in return. — Baden

Electing Biden is by no means "free." It will come at a very major cost indeed.

Or we help elect Trump and have to spend the next four years defending the policies that he hasn't yet destroyed, while losing the courts to a generation of conservative judges.

Not a hard choice.

I'm advocating for progressives to say this to the Dems:

"Give us what we want or fuck off." — Baden

I would love to do that more than anyone. There's no proof that that works, and it was tried in 2016. We simply can't afford to do it again, because it really does matter who's in office. It doesn't mean letting the DNC off the hook for what they've done -- far from it.

It's clear, simple, and the only thing that has a hope of getting the weasels in the DNC to take on significant progressive policies. — Baden

OK, I just disagree with this I guess. Where is the evidence this is true? What happened in 2016 changed very little -- what changed was the continued fight of Bernie Sanders supporters and the offshoots of that campaign, in advocating for $15 minimum wage, Medicare for All, a Green New Deal, etc. etc. at the local and state level. Which is where all progress happens, in reality.

Bernie understands all of this too. It's not because he's a "sell out," it's because he understands the urgency of removing Trump, given this time in history.

As far as the OP -- I'm glad to see very few voting for Trump. But those voting third party or not voting, depending on the logic (safe state or not), is a bit higher than I expected.

Yes.

From the Netherlands the only meaningful differences between Republicans and Democrats are gay marriage, abortion and a somewhat tougher stance on immigration. — Benkei

You leave out the most important: climate change.

It would be nice to have a planet in the future, I think. So yes, I value any chance of making that happen over protests votes that don't do anything and guarantee disaster. Call me crazy.

Only because you make it so. You're caught in the circular logic of saying you need to do what makes it necessary for you to do what you did. — Baden

No, he's being realistic. That's the unfortunate choice -- it'll be Biden or Trump. That's A or B. What requires delusion is voting for Donald Trump again, which is what you're advocating. Third party and no vote is a vote for Trump. That's simple arithmetic.

If you cared more about the real world and getting real progressive policies through, you wouldn't be advocating for revenge, as if the DNC will hear you loud and clear. People were saying exactly the same thing in 2016. I'm sure the last 3 years has been great for you, but those of us who care about the future would have preferred an administration we could actually pressure for more and more sensible policies rather than have to spend time fighting to keep the measly ones we still have.

The difference between Trump and Biden is marginal from any perspective but the US perspective. — Benkei

In many ways, both those "marginal differences" in the most powerful country on Earth actually do make a difference. Although in this case, it's not always so marginal. Again I come back to climate change: check out the approaches and decide who's more damaging. One wants to take small steps towards renewable energy (not nearly enough); one says it's a Chinese hoax and wants to prop up the coal industry.

Still "marginal"?