Sure. And giant scrubbers.

But what about the carbon footprint of those giant scrubbers!?

And the center is not evil. Meeting in the middle is how democracy works. It's normal to get frustrated that things aren't the way they should be, but we're better off facing our problems together than becoming polarized and thus unable to deal with anything.

We will stand together. That's who we are. — frank

There are some things that cannot be compromised. For example, there is no possible centrism regarding the antinatalist proposal. You are either born or you are not born (and abortion debates are not the point here). You cannot "meet in the middle" regarding whether it is good to bring another person into the world. If you do it on behalf of someone else, it is they who have to deal with your decision (not to mention the collateral of all the people that person may interact with). We cannot meet in the middle for an agenda that is pushed on people. The first political decision made on behalf of someone is whether to bring them into the world. You can pretend that there are enough "options" for the person to justify the "freedom" to do what they want after birth, but there was never the option never to play the game in the first place :worry:. This will always make politics rationalization after the initial aggression. The aggression to presume that creating the circumstances of life for someone else is actually the right thing to do for someone else. That is an assumption, and it should be questioned.

Whether we should have public health care, free education, raise taxes, pay of the debt, etc. is just the collateral damage of the work foisted upon the already-born. Unless we question the root of all of this (birth), we are not getting to the philosophical root of all political theory.. the decision to birth in the first place on someone else's behalf.

but there was never the option never to play the game in the first place — schopenhauer1

That goes without saying. Only actual existing people have options.

But what about the carbon footprint of those giant scrubbers!? — Punshhh

Giant rugs so they can clean off their shoes.

That goes without saying. Only actual existing people have options. — Benkei

We know that by existing. If there were null people in this world, this fact wouldn't matter. Once just one new person enters this world, then the antinatalist premise makes sense. Options aren't even a matter of mattering without people, true, but that wouldn't matter, so what's the matter with no people/no options? Giving people life, and thus "options" is still forcing life and the intendant "options" in the first place. The options are actually more limited than one might argue, and it is pretty straightfoward what the person born will have to face on a societal and existential level. That is forced options if you ask me. THAT is the first political move. Every other subject is footnotes to that first existential/political move on behalf of someone else. It is that initial ASSUMPTION of what must happen for the person being born. All of this other stuff is window-dressing to that originary decision (for someone else to deal with). There is no going back after that- not EVEN suicide.

And the center is not evil. Meeting in the middle is how democracy works. It's normal to get frustrated that things aren't the way they should be, but we're better off facing our problems together than becoming polarized and thus unable to deal with anything. — frank

I can't stand this this sort of enlightened centrism claptrap, but I'm happy you stand with me against it. Agreed, together we are much stronger in bringing down centrism as a viable intellectual position.

Although I agree democracy involves a lot of compromise, the result of that compromise at any given moment is unlikely to create a new coherent ideology.

Centrism, the ideology of the "what (I claim to be) the right compromise between (what I claim to be) good faith rational actors on the debate stage of politics" is simply a euphemism of militating for the status quo -- or then just lazy thinking that such status quo militants take advantage of.

The ideology of militating for the status quo (such as the now famous Iowa "coin flipper") is not a good faith ideology that the policy compromise between different world views actually forms a new coherent world view, rather it is the ideology of maintaining privilege and advantage of the the people that happen to benefit from the current status quo. If one is on-top, and only concerned with maintaining a privileged position and not with any notions of the public good, then any change is seen as a risk and it's nearly always best to keep things as they are; a change is generally sought to neutralize what is seen as a worse change that would otherwise happen.

Furthermore, if the compromise being referenced simply excludes any world view outside the privileged class, it's not even a compromise to begin with; it's simply a cowardly way of saying the privileged should rule the masses, because the privileged seem to agree on at least that.

Exactly! When the shit hits the fan, you and I will be standing shoulder to shoulder, joining forces to find the right path.

Yay us!

I PM'ed to avoid cluttering the thread.

You can always just shoot the other side and be done with. Might be a good solution for a lot of things really. Every 50 years we divide in two camps based on ideology and one of them gets to shoot the other based on a flip of the coin. We can have a debt jubilee afterwards. Good times will be had by (half of) all!

You can always just shoot the other side and be done with. Might be a good solution for a lot of things really. Every 50 years we divide in two camps based on ideology and one of them gets to shoot the other based on a flip of the coin. We can have a debt jubilee afterwards. Good times will be had by (half of) all! — Benkei

The first thing I said was compromise is apart of democracy. I'm fully willing to compromise if what is lost in strife is greater than what is gained by an uncompromising attitude.

My point is that whatever the resulting compromise is at any given moment, is unlikely to result in a new coherent ideology. Centrism is by definition simply the status quo, some static definition of centrism that didn't follow closely the status quo would become tomorrows extreme regressivism. The centrists of yesteryear are the strange deluded monarchists of today (unless you live in the UK of course).

One can be more-or-less content with the status quo (and willing to defend it against worse things) but, again, that does not result in the status quo representing a coherent world view; simply that it's better than the alternatives in question.

Likewise, simply because the status quo as a whole is unlikely to be coherent, does not entail every part is unjustifiable. Many parts will be justifiable, but such justification is only feasible to construct in relation to (at the least an honest attempt) to make a coherent world view in which that part happens to be justified; in making such a world view, every other part of the status quo one is very unlikely to be able to justify. Hence, to adopt the status quo as an ideology in itself is simply lazy thinking, just plastering the wall with the hodgepodge of what passes for laudable opinion of the day.

Militant centrists (those willing to defend the status quo through democratically bad faith actions of propaganda, changing laws to entrench the status quo, and fixing elections) do not actually have the status quo as an ideology. Attributing good faith to militant centrists is an analytical mistake. Their ideology is their own privilege and defending it against the risks change brings; and from this ideology, when change seems inevitable, the coherent decision is to ally with fascists, as, yes they may do all sorts of terrible things hardly acceptable in polite society to placate an enraged reactionary brownshirt movement, but they at least do not change the class structure of society; such an alliance is not only the logical decision to make but what we see historically. The "true believers in centrism" are simply lazy thinkers that simply live in denial about the inability to justify all parts of the status quo simultaneously in one coherent framework, and so rather than investigate the foundations of their own beliefs and making real decisions about them, of what they can actually defend in the status quo and what they can't, they are comforted by the conjuring up of worse people by the propagandists; when fascists takeover, such people do not even bother to rise to defend the status quo from a worse development: they're much too busy for such tiresome arguments.

I'm not a socialist.Not even a democratic socialist. The US got its wealth through a system Bernie wants to destroy. He has no understanding of the economy at all. It would be insane for him to be president. — fishfry

I believe Bernie could have beaten Trump in 2016. I don't think he can beat him in 2020 unless there is a humongous economic collapse. And there is currently a seriously nonzero probability exactly that. The Fed's been blowing bubbles of digital money into the system since the last financial crisis, which in effect never actually went away. It just got papered over, literally. When the bill comes due it will be a crash the likes of which the world has never seen. — fishfry

And Bernie? No no no no no. Unbelievable that an ignorant guy like that could be in charge of the country. — fishfry

I think I somehow can't believe a 78 year old who had a heart attack a few months ago is the likely nominee and is surrounded by screaming youngsters like a rock star. — fishfry

Interesting post with some thought put into it. Thanks.

But getting to the fine print... Ok, fair enough. You either don’t think Bernie can win, or if the unthinkable happened, it would be like having a former Hippie as president, throwing dollar bills and big doobies (marijuana) out of the Federal Reserve window to his crazed, brainwashed snowflaky fans. With Bob Dylan and the remnants of the Grateful Dead (including some holy relics from Jerry Garcia), Snoop Dogg with a reformed Public Enemy, performing a free concert on the White House lawn in some bizarre combination of Woodstock and the March on Washington. Bernie is inaugurated wearing a tie-dyed shirt, with Noam Chomsky standing next to him. (Ok, maybe that is going too far for a joke, lol. Anyway...)

You are not a “democratic socialist”. That is fine. Yes, obviously Bernie calls himself that. And his opponents do also, but use “scare quotes”, make clucking noises of disapproval, and warn of dire consequences. We have all seen the juicy sound bites. (Though I’m not sure what exactly these terms are supposed to mean anymore. I know in general what they are intended to mean. But words, labels, ideologies, and especially political philosophies have been ever so slowly drained of whatever meaning they once had. It all seems to be advertising, propaganda, and personal branding. Like how Christianity has somehow mutated into an apologist for the war machine. Oh pardon me, “national defense system”. Anyway, please excuse this tangential philosophical point).

But whatever other valid points you make, it is an extreme exaggeration to say Sanders “wants to destroy” the whole system. Come on now. Let’s be fair. That is practically calling him a communist, or something worse, but without the directness to do so openly. Because it is a totally unfounded cheap shot, either implied or explicit. Like calling Sanders “ignorant”. Ok, sure.. Par for the course in an election campaign, “sticks and stones”, etc. Hyperbole and humor. I do it too. (Like this silliness for example. Trump’s new slogan: “Four more years! Let’s Have Another Orangasm!” :snicker: Although come to think of it, Joe Biden has been looking a little orange lately. Is there a tariff-caused shortage of natural-looking makeup for men? Bernie is pale and proud, lol).

But most observers can see these type of ploys as a desperate attempt to trip up the runner who is 50 yards ahead of everybody in this preliminary track meet. Tackling is not officially allowed in a foot race. Just because it happens and often goes unpunished, doesn’t mean nobody notices or cares. Ok, maybe this is just some sideline forum of internet opinion, mixed with some occasional philosophical insight. But if one wants to stand on their words, they have to have some kind of rational foundation. (Or even a relatively honest emotional one. That is acceptable, if expressed fairly. Emotions are part of who we are, of course).

I used to be a left winger. It's spin I believe because I watched it happen and I think for myself. I stand with Trump, warts and all. As opposed to what's become of the Dems. — fishfry

A lot of liberals just don't get it. I used to be a liberal. I'm off the reservation. Just how it is. I'm not alone. A lot of former liberals are in shock at what's become of our former side. So yeah, I'm mind boggled too. — fishfry

Now look... (Just kidding. Don’t you hate when debaters start with that bossy-sounding introduction? It’s like... LOOK... (pregnant pause... either signifying depth of thought, or perhaps an unspoken insult. Such as: LOOK... ya big goofball etc... Almost as bad is someone saying “LISTEN... blah blah...” I’m waiting for the first debater to go all in with “LOOK... LISTEN... and LEARN...” ) Sorry for the rant.

Anyway, I am disillusioned (or perhaps “realistic”) about the Democratic Party. (I refuse to say I’m “woke”. Nor am I a “Bernie Bro”. Nor any other kind of “bro”. Buzzwords are as annoying as flies). But I had hopes for the Obama presidency. I thirstily sipped the Kool-aid, but only a little. I thought maybe, somehow he would understand, hoped he would care, figured he would at least try to make some little thing fairer. Maybe he was slightly better than the alternative. Maybe the Middle East would have exploded with 4 more years of Neo-Con meddling (and that’s putting it very politely). Maybe not. What do I know? Very little probably. My point is that the Democratic Party (which is neither democratic, nor much of a party) is NOT “liberalism” or even “the left wing” in its entirety. Not even close. The two-party system is an effective monopoly, a good cop/bad cop routine. Two sides of the same coin. They speak for no one except themselves mostly.

If Bernie were any more independent, he’d be on the sidelines with the rest of us. If he were any less independent, he’d be another gravy train rider looking for the path of least resistance. He definitely is NOT Frodo Baggins trying to destroy the evil Ring, nor Luke Skywalker trying to blow up the Death Star. He is not even trying to “level the playing field”... whatever that means. There is no playing field. There is a pyramid and a ladder, with those at the top of it pouring boiling oil on those below. Maybe at one time, the middle-class dreamed that there was room for more at the top of the pyramid, but there never was. Not a pretty picture. At best, Bernie Sanders SEEMS to be TRYING to go in a new direction that is at least a little tiny bit fairer for most people. I’ll take that chance, and hold him to his wager.

The casino has stacked the odds against us, and rigged the slot machines. Even the glittering showgirls are picking our pockets. Now it seems the only way to win... is to leave.

Feel. The. Bern.

What do we - non-shareholding stakeholders - have to lose except our chains (aka "debt peonage" "wage stagnation" "healthcare un / under insurance" "opioid pill mills" "private prison mills" "voter suppression" etc)? :eyes:

Centrism, the ideology of the "what (I claim to be) the right compromise between (what I claim to be) good faith rational actors on the debate stage of politics" is simply a euphemism of militating for the status quo -- or then just lazy thinking that such status quo militants take advantage of.

The ideology of militating for the status quo (such as the now famous Iowa "coin flipper") is not a good faith ideology that the policy compromise between different world views actually forms a new coherent world view, rather it is the ideology of maintaining privilege and advantage of the the people that happen to benefit from the current status quo. — boethius

Militant centrists (those willing to defend the status quo through democratically bad faith actions of propaganda, changing laws to entrench the status quo, and fixing elections) do not actually have the status quo as an ideology. Attributing good faith to militant centrists is an analytical mistake. Their ideology is their own privilege and defending it against the risks change brings; and from this ideology, when change seems inevitable, the coherent decision is to ally with fascists, as, yes they may do all sorts of terrible things hardly acceptable in polite society to placate an enraged reactionary brownshirt movement, but they at least do not change the class structure of society ... — boethius

To argue "Well, climate change would exist without Trump" is, at best, childish to the point of embarrassment.
— Xtrix

No, it is not. — Nobeernolife

Yes, it is.

US policy does not determine the world climate. — Nobeernolife

Yes, it does, and to a very large degree. Only China currently emits more CO2, for example.

If I assume that all the wild-eyed claims about global warming being solely caused by human burning of fossil fuels were true... — Nobeernolife

It's not "wild-eyed" claims, it's climatology. It's the entire scientific community. The claim is not that burning fossil fuels is the sole cause, either. Deforestation plays a significant role as well, among others.

Given how easy it is to educate yourself on this, your ignorance about it is striking -- yet not terribly surprising.

You could have Trump entact 100% of the most radical green agenda, and it would not make any difference. — Nobeernolife

It absolutely would.

The world is a lot bigger than the US, and the approx. 1100 bb of proven oil reserves (maybe double that including fracking) will be consumed regardless. Or do you think India, China, and Africa (heading towards a population of 4 billion within the next 50 years) give a wet fart about what the policy the US has?

To assume that a US president can determine the world`s climate is simply megalomania. — Nobeernolife

The US is a world leader, the wealthiest and most powerful country on Earth. To believe its climate policies and involvement in global agreements on climate change has little impact is mind-numbingly ignorant.

But regardless -- what is your point, exactly? We should do nothing, since we're doomed anyway? Common attitude among deniers, but no less ridiculous.

What Xtrix is saying is blatantly false. Trump is not responsible for climate change. This shouldn't even be a matter of debate. — frank

I never said Trump is responsible for climate change. Not once.

You really have some reading comprehension problems, don't you Frank?

Try to keep up, buddy.

I'm not a socialist.Not even a democratic socialist. The US got its wealth through a system Bernie wants to destroy. He has no understanding of the economy at all. — fishfry

What wealth? You mean the wealth of the 1%? Yes, we all agree the economy has worked very well for them, and they continue to prosper. The system that's been in place has been a state-capitalist system, rigged for the wealthy who can lobby for legislation, subsidies, contracts, tax breaks, and bailouts from the government (our tax money). Bernie does indeed want to destroy that. I agree with him.

I would grow out of this fear of "socialism" and try learning something about what Bernie's proposals really are and whether they make sense.

I'd vote for Bloomberg/Clinton over Trump.
— Xtrix

Bloomberg and Clinton are exactly why the public wants Trump and Bernie. You cling to the neoliberal consensus perhaps because you don't know how truly evil it's become. Didn't the Iraq war teach you anything? — fishfry

Given the context, it was very easy to see that I don't like either, but was demonstrating how "low" I would go just to get Trump out of office. How is that hard to understand?

As for "neoliberal consensus"...do you even know what that is? Because it's the agenda of Donald Trump. It's every policy that's come out of the Trump administration: deregulation, privatization, corporate tax cuts, etc.

So you either don't know what you're talking about, or voted in favor of neoliberalism. I assume you're just confused, though, because the word "liberal" is in it.

I stand with Trump, warts and all. — fishfry

Great choice.

And Bernie? No no no no no. Unbelievable that an ignorant guy like that could be in charge of the country. — fishfry

Yeah, this coming from someone who voted for and continues to stand by Donald Trump?

Excuse me as I laugh myself out of this dialogue.

For starters, the US doing 100% of what it originally promised, it would make about 15% difference. — Benkei

Difference in what, exactly? Firstly, It is not all clear what you mean, and secondly, 15% difference is a far cry from the "end of civilization" that was claimed here, evil orageman Trump would produce.

Second, locally it makes sense as well as it will lower pollution significantly if you move to alternative fuel sources and improve air quality (particularly due to reduced particulates). Investing in energy saving measures is even better as it will result in long term benefits freeing up resources (both money and fossil fuels) for other uses. — Benkei

Nothing wrong with reducing pollution, however "moving to alternative fuel sources" is easier said than done, seeing that currently the only viable alternative to fossil fuels is nuclear, and currently gen 4 nuclear technology is not fully developed yet.

And regardless of all this... where is the "end civilization" that was prophecied and that I doubted?

The US is a world leader, the wealthiest and most powerful country on Earth. To believe its climate policies and involvement in global agreements on climate change has little impact is mind-numbingly ignorant. — Xtrix

Oh, it would certainly have an impact on policy.... i.e. China taking advantage of the US hobbling its economy, and African dictators gathering at the trough of "climate" subsidies for vague promises. It would NOT have an impact on the worlds climate.

But regardless -- what is your point, exactly? We should do nothing, since we're doomed anyway? Common attitude among deniers, but no less ridiculous. — Xtrix

I do not buy the premise that we are all "doomed" because of some US political decisions. I am fully in favour of reducing the dependence on fossil fuels and on subsidizing research in alternative energy sources.

I never said Trump is responsible for climate change. Not once. — Xtrix

If you never said that, why are you arguing? The only reason I jumped in here was because of the hysterical claim that "civilization" would not survive another 4 years of Trump.

Sorry, I was being cheeky and tried to illustrate what the logical conclusion would be of polarisation.

Breitbart ran an article calling Bloomberg a Maoist so I think we can all rest easy as the Right calls Bernie a socialist

Oh, it would certainly have an impact on policy.... i.e. China taking advantage of the US hobbling its economy, and African dictators gathering at the trough of "climate" subsidies for vague promises. It would NOT have an impact on the worlds climate. — Nobeernolife

Yawn. And you know this for a fact because you're a climatologist, or at least have educated yourself on this topic. :roll:

It would have a drastic impact on the climate if we enacted a plan to cut emissions by moving to renewables, taxing carbon, better regulating Big Oil, more efficient practices in agriculture, etc. To argue this would have no impact is, again, insanely ignorant.

You're out of your league on this topic, and embarrassing yourself. Cut your losses and stop. It's not even fair -- I have the science community on my side. It's easy to Google and inform yourself. I highly recommend it.

Or continue making embarrassing claims. Your call.

I never said Trump is responsible for climate change. Not once.
— Xtrix
If you never said that, why are you arguing? The only reason I jumped in here was because of the hysterical claim that "civilization" would not survive another 4 years of Trump. — Nobeernolife

I didn't say that either. I'm arguing because of your stupid statements, which you continue to make, about comments I never made.

Four more years of Trump's environmental policies will exacerbate the climate crisis. There's no doubt about that. He's also a climate denier. A Democratic alternative, no matter who it is (assuming they at least acknowledge climate change as a real threat), is a better choice for this reason alone. That was the point. The fact that you take this to mean "Trump is responsible for climate change" or we "won't survive 4 more years of Trump" is pretty telling. It means that's what you want to hear. It's a straw man -- which is all you are informed enough to argue against. Which is to say, not at all.

Yawn. And you know this for a fact because you're a climatologist, or at least have educated yourself on this topic. :roll: — Xtrix

I am not a climatologist, and obviously neither are you. And my comment were about politics, not climate.

It would have a drastic impact on the climate if we enacted a plan to cut emissions by moving to renewables, taxing carbon, better regulating Big Oil, more efficient practices in agriculture, etc. To argue this would have no impact is, again, insanely ignorant. — Xtrix

Sounds great, doesn´t it. But who is "we", and what should this plan look like? You do not say. Clearly, in "we" you do not include China, India, and Africa. As I pointed out, even if the US did not exist, the rest of world would continue to consume fossil fuels.

You're out of your league on this topic, and embarrassing yourself. Cut your losses and stop. It's not even fair -- I have the science community on my side. It's easy to Google and inform yourself. I highly recommend it. — Xtrix

Name-calling is not an argument, and on Google you can find all sorts of things, including critics of the global warming talking points.

Four more years of Trump's environmental policies will exacerbate the climate crisis. There's no doubt about that. He's also a climate denier. A Democratic alternative, no matter who it is (assuming they at least acknowledge climate change as a real threat), is a better choice for this reason alone. That was the point. — Xtrix

Well, if your point is that a massive recession would cut consumption, economic activity, and thus fossil fuel consumption, you might have a point. Other than that, I see only propaganda talking points. What the f&& is a "climate denier" anyway? The climate does not make claims, how can you deny them?

Breitbart ran an article calling Bloomberg a Maoist — Maw

Got a link for that?

Bernie Sanders says to NYC hotdog vendor: If I’m elected, you and your family will have free healthcare.

Mike Bloomberg says to NYC hotdog vendor: My good sir, would you happen to be able to break a thousand-dollar bill? It’s the smallest one in my wallet... :grin:

The fact that you take this to mean "Trump is responsible for climate change" or we "won't survive 4 more years of Trump" is pretty telling. It means that's what you want to hear. It's a straw man -- which is all you are informed enough to argue against. Which is to say, not at all. — Xtrix

I just checked my posts, and the comment I was responding to was that "civilization is going to be %&%%%% to the point of no return" by Trump.
But that was made by a user called "Wayfarer" not you, so sorry about misattribution.

"Wayfarer" apparently left his t*rd behind and never explained.

As a side note on the debates, it is somewhat encouraging to see several people over the age of 70 right in the middle of the action. Sometimes, the trend is to discount anyone near retirement age as clueless or ready for the scrap heap. Image is content in the Instagram age. So any kind of probing into something beyond the superficialities is encouraging, imho...

Also, I’d like to express the hope for a peaceful and safe 2020 US election process. Safe for the candidates, their families, supporters, and everyone else involved. This is one of the most highly charged election seasons here in a long time. And it is easy to get wound up and frustrated, no matter where your beliefs may lie on the political spectrum. Violence of any kind is no answer to the subtle and complex questions that we are facing. It’s like trying to solve an algebra problem with dynamite. That’s probably very obvious, maybe goes without saying. But extremist irrationality sometimes is very powerfully seductive, and difficult for an individual or group to resist... Peace to all, without exception. :victory:

Sometimes I wonder if Bernie Sanders actually has a tougher task to win the Democratic nomination than he would have in facing the current POTUS in the November general election. Maybe all of intra-party “frenemies” and potential plotting and backstabbing will make everything afterwards seem easier.

It’s like having your family yell and scream at you at the breakfast table, and you begin to look forward to going to your job hauling trash, or something, lol.

One would think that an effective strategy for the Democratic party in the November election season would be to support and fund independent, third-party conservative campaigns. Yes, conservative! There are many people I believe who have lost interest or faith in Trump, but would never vote for a Democrat. If the Libertarian party, for example, or an independent Conservative candidate such as John Kasich were seen as a viable alternative to the incumbent by those on the general Right, it would funnel votes away from him. And might cause Trump to lose some key states in the process. (There’s an idea for Bloomberg or Tom Steyer about what to do with all their money once they are out of the race). Just a thought...

You can simply Google "Bloomberg Maoist", not giving Breitbart the click throughs