:yawn:

Oh good, you took some meds.

Ok, at least you've articulated a position that isn't just a bunch of ad homs. I'll get back to you more on it later, especially seeing as the point about character is complicated. The focus on Trump's boorish character, for example, is usually just a distraction, but the lack of consistency with Biden and the specific charge is a problem. Anyway, one thing I'll challenge you on now is the idea that Trump is an existential threat re climate change. He has four more years. What is the extent of the damage you think he'll do in that time as opposed to Biden being in charge? Give me some specifics.

The focus on Trump's boorish character, for example, is usually just a distraction, — Baden

Baden...how can you say that Trump's boorish character is "usually just a distraction"...

...when you specifically said, "The point here is to highlight the fact that at some point, the character of the person elected must matter."

Are you suggesting that "the character of the person" matters...unless it entails the character defect of "boorishness?" Do you not see that "boorishness" in the leader of a nation like America is essentially disqualifying? How does one thread the needle of diplomacy with other nations (and with other domestic political sensibilities) with the limitless supply of boorishness Trump brings to the table?

Republicans do not have to give a flying fuck about Trump's sexual assault allegations, they only have to pretend to legitimately care and appeal to legal signifiers to be persuasive to their voter base on the matter. There are already narratives popular in their voter base that allow them to metabolise it. Take "being resilient to shocks caused by finding out your top brass is likely to be a sex offender" as you will.

Democrat supporters are saying the same shit they were lambasting just months ago in the Kavanaugh trial (edit: promotion interview), revealing it absolutely is just a partisan issue to them as the Republicans accused them of. A major credibility issue for sincere American liberals who get hit in the feels by credible sexual assault allegations regarding the president they're supposed to like.

We are in the best of all possible worlds, the democratic party absolutely will minimise this showing their outright hypocrisy and opportunism, and the republican party can laugh at the sidelines whereas before, to them, it was about "due process" and the role of court (don't politicise a tragedy, as you lot like to say).

They deserve each other.

Democrat supporters saying the same shit they were lambasting just months ago in the Kavanaugh trial, revealing it absolutely is just a partisan issue to them as the Republicans accused them of. — fdrake

Yep.

We are in the best of all possible worlds, the democratic party absolutely will minimise this showing their outright hypocrisy and opportunism, and the republican party can laugh at the sidelines whereas before, to them, it was about "due process" and the role of court (don't politicise a tragedy, as you lot like to say). — fdrake

No, Republicans know Democrats are just like themselves when it comes to ruthlessness. It's people who want to understand the world as a real-life anime with superheroes and ultra-villains who think something world-stopping just happened.

But consider: Trump has the constitutional means to call off the up-coming election and remain in office. Maybe Biden will take that opportunity to drop out and let someone else run. And maybe it will be someone just astonishingly upright like Barack Obama. You never know.

Trump has the constitutional means to call off the up-coming election and remain in office. — frank

He does?

How so?

It's people who want to understand the world as a real-life anime with superheroes and ultra-villains who think something world-stopping just happened. — frank

America's politics is set from the ground up to be a gigantic spectacle. Everyone who reads the news can't help but become intimately familiar with American politics. Everyone who consumes media can't help but become familiar with American culture. Our news cycles are dominated by your politician-come-reality-TV-stars, and it should go without saying that the USA's stance on the matter, whatever the matter is, sets the tone for things internationally.

Your culture is generalised and exported as entirely universal, your politics dominates headlines and policy the world over, and you're somehow bamboozled that the rest of the world has a tendency to react to it. We get pissed off with how full of shit your politics is when it spreads around filling the airwaves with endless crap, gets into the minds of our politicians by being born from the same, uliginous, anus or ends up making some Palestinian kid afraid of the sky.

How so? — Frank Apisa

Oh, it's not constitutional. If he called off the election, red states would probably comply. Blue states cant do it on their own.

That's very regrettable for the world. I'm American and American culture irritates me. I can't imagine what it must be like to feel invaded by it. Like being infected?

I mean, I'm British. We're the trope codifiers for modern imperialism/neocolonialism. It isn't a coincidence that we can both go to a foreign country and expect them to speak our language, right? Isn't it strange that the world treats English as the dominant language.

Some reading (neutral source, philosophy encyclopedia article on neocolonialism)

We get pissed off with how full of shit your politics is when it spreads around filling the airwaves with endless crap, gets into the minds of our politicians by being born from the same, uliginous, anus or ends up making some Palestinian kid afraid of the sky. — fdrake

We too, we too. Just for the heck of it,and if it doesn't bend this thread too far out of shape, can you maybe make two brief and substantive suggestions for improvements?

I'm partial to making lying a federal civil offense, subject to triple financial damages and/or fines depending on circumstance, the lie itself being sufficient to convict. Trump, for example, could continue to lie like a rug, but every person could sue him for damages.

We too, we too. Just for the heck of it,and if it doesn't bend this thread too far out of shape, can you maybe make two brief and substantive suggestions for improvements? — tim wood

For America? Not that my opinion matters.

Redistributive measures (suggest huge progressive income tax and treating all assets gained and held as taxable and highly taxed, bring back FDR).
Mandatory union membership as part of a worker's contract.
Huge investment in tax officers.
Updated laws on data and fiscal transparency.
Updated laws on tax avoidance and company formation (fuck shell companies).
Weaken corporate restricted liability.
Tiny donation caps for political parties from private interests.
Make all party funding a matter of public record, I want the bank statements and a public registry of names and accounts and transactions.
As thorough conflict of interest background checks on politicians as you have for social workers.
Well funded and staffed public institutions to enforce all that crap.

And if anyone says "capital flight", take some cues from China.

I can dream. If any of that stuff actually became a political option it would be shot down from the get go.

I'm partial to making lying a federal civil offense, subject to triple financial damages and/or fines depending on circumstance, the lie itself being sufficient to convict.

A politician who can be demonstrated to be acting against the public interest should be charged with treason.

I'll sleep well tonight.

Nice! I like them all, a lot - well, maybe the union requirement not quite so much.

maybe the union requirement not quite so much. — tim wood

Having a contractually obliged political organisation of heterogeneous but align-able interests that spans every aspect of the private sector is extremely attractive. An already organised series of levers for grassroots activists.

Ok, at least you've articulated a position that isn't just a bunch of ad homs. I'll get back to you more on it later, especially seeing as the point about character is complicated. — Baden

No, it isn't that complicated. I don't think you and I really "disagree," either. You know as well as I do that both political parties in the United States are beholden to "special interests" (i.e., corporate interests), and that we're living in an era of a savage version of capitalism that started roughly 40 years ago (neoliberalism). We also agree, I think, that at this point in history we are facing an imminent existential crisis, comparable only to nuclear war in its potential for destroying human life.

None of these points require great intellectual capability. They're factual claims, and really transcend any political ideology. All you have to do is look around at how things work, and maybe listen to a few scientists -- in the same way we do with everything that hasn't been politicized and manufactured to be "controversial."

All right, so in the end we're left with an admittedly poor choice, once again, between two old white men with questionable (to say the very least) character, claims of sexual assault, possible cognitive decline, etc.

Given the above situation, particularly regarding our facing extinction, what political party do we want appointing department heads (say the EPA), judges, Supreme Court justices? Who would be preferable?

We can claim that there is no difference at all, that both are equally or roughly as bad, albeit in different ways. I simply don't agree with that. The Republican party has simply gone off the rails at this point, while the Democrats are essentially "moderate Republicans."

But hone in on that one issue -- the most pressing, climate change -- and ask what not only the rhetoric is, but what the policies are, and see if there's any discernible difference. Turns out there is. Yes, a relatively small difference but, given our status, this reverberates throughout the world.

So we have one party, with Trump in the lead as the loudest, essentially denying anything is happening at all. Furthermore, he and the Republicans want to accelerate the problem -- and there's 3 years of policies that show this, which have been well documented.

We have another party who says the right things and who take only marginal steps forwards -- not nearly enough, like the Paris Accords. OK, not great -- but something. They've also shown to be much more influenceable in terms of progressive policies generally -- and this is crucial.

All of this may be long-winded and boring, and not as much fun as discussing character or about how corrupt the DNC is (which I agree with), but is there any real choice?

When these are the only options currently available, we should require a few seconds to make the easy choice, help get the less damaging party take control, and then continue hammering away at them. The other option, and one advocated here by a few people, is to vote third party, write-in, or not vote at all -- to send a message, for spite, for moral reasons, etc. All of which is a vote for Trump and the "most dangerous party in human history" (Chomsky). Why? Simple arithmetic. Another thing we can agree on.

I think the choice is clear.

Discussing this really misses the larger point, too. Remember that the real work is done not every 4 years when we get to push a button, but day after day of small steps -- small, local work. Organizing. Discussing issues with friends and families and neighbors. Educating people (and ourselves). Signing petitions, staging protests, initiating lawsuits, etc.

Anyway, one thing I'll challenge you on now is the idea that Trump is an existential threat re climate change. He has four more years. What is the extent of the damage you think he'll do in that time as opposed to Biden being in charge? Give me some specifics. — Baden

Sure. It's fairly easy to see what it will be, given there's nearly 4 years of well-documented policies already available. And the best way to predict future behavior is past behavior, as they say.

The most obvious thing to point out is that neither Trump nor the Republicans are even hiding their attitude towards this issue anymore. They are telling us, to our faces, that they don't believe there's an issue, they don't trust the scientists, they're "skeptical," etc.

As far as actions, the NYT (and others) have a running tab of environmental regulations that have been or are in the process of being destroyed. The biggest is car emissions standards and regulating methane leaks.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/climate/trump-environment-rollbacks.html?fbclid=IwAR0xtmcECtsmHsq2Rst3sHZdu6Mt39_HPljzzuNh6_VdkQxNdTWXTp-4mSM

There's been the appointments of oil executives and lobbyists to the EPA, the censoring of scientific information, the removal of any mention of "climate change" from their website, etc etc.

He's opened up millions of acres of public lands for oil and gas extraction leases. Many are currently in the courts.

Trump has tried repeatedly, based on a campaign promise, to prop up a dying coal industry ("Trump digs coal!"), and has taken steps in doing so -- steps which had been dictated nearly verbatim from Murray Energy, a major Trump donor (now going bankrupt).

Then there's the pulling out of the Paris Agreement, which will happen a day after the election (if Trump is re-elected). Say what you will about the agreement (it has no teeth and barely does enough), it's something the US could be in the lead on. It's being abandoned altogether by Trump and co. We'll be an outlier as one of the only nations on earth not in the agreement.

All very well documented, not secret.

How does this compare with Biden? My suspicion is that although Biden claims to be in favor of a Green New Deal and has vowed to stop any "new" drilling, he'll try going the Obama route of encouraging natural gas (which produces less CO2 than coal and oil) and taking only baby steps towards Paris Accord goals, unless pressured by environmental groups to do more (which is at least possible, whereas with the Trump administration we hit a brick wall and are in fact fighting just to prevent any gains already made in the past from being destroyed).

So here we have a real easy comparison:

One administration denies anything is happening and happily takes orders from the fossil fuel industry, appointing their executives and lobbyists to the very institution in charge of monitoring them. In other words, wants to step on the gas so we go over the cliff quicker.

The other claims climate change is real and important, will stock the EPA, as in the past, with scientists, will remain in the Paris Accords, will prevent further drilling on public lands, will at least posture as a leader in this cause (which is important for other countries), and will be sympathetic to activist causes (like Native American protests of pipelines through tribal lands, etc). All of which really should be considered the bare minimum. Hopefully they do much more. But that's the choice.

If you want a detailed plan of what Biden is proposing, see here: https://joebiden.com/climate/

Remember, I'm not saying he's the environmentalist's dream candidate. But given the alternative, he might as well be.

This isn't any old issue, either. It's the issue of our time. We just can't mess around with it, it's too important. We have to get our priorities straight.

I like what Biden has to say about climate change, but I think more emphasis needs be placed on preparing for climate change. Water rising in the streets in Miami, . . .. :worry:

jgill
476
I like what Biden has to say about climate change, but I think more emphasis needs be placed on preparing for climate change. Water rising in the streets in Miami, . . .. :worry: — jgill

Sounds like a reasonable take on the issue, jgill.

We have to do both, really. The emphasis is in fact shifting more towards preparation as it becomes more and more obvious. The links aren't always obvious, either. So given a largely ignorant population, who keep electing deniers, we're all but guaranteeing our demise.

The best thing Biden and any leader can do is to simply listen to the scientists.

(From a baseball scandal 100 years ago, to a current political one... history repeats itself. Um, kinda.) Scene: A small girl (protected by a face mask and a watchful parent) approaches a lawyer and bodyguard-encircled Mr, Biden. She speaks. “Say it ain’t so, Joe. Say it ain’t so!”

Biden thoughtfully considers, and replies: “The malfeasance manifested here is notable for its incongruity, bar none. At least that’s what my Grandpa always said”. The girl is naturally speechless after hearing these words of wisdom.

Meanwhile many miles away in an oval-shaped office, a man dances gleefully like Rumplestiltskin, while singing and muttering “got ya now, creepy Joe... the end is coming fast, and you’re just too slow!”

I enjoyed reading that from a literary perspective.

Thank you kindly, sir. :pray:

I'm not following your response. Perhaps you missed my previous posts where I made it clear that I will vote for Biden over Trump no matter what.

Even if he turns out to be the Antichrist?

The Antichrist is a fictional character - so that is not on my list of concerns. :smile: I'm also not concerned if he turned out to be an alien, lizard person, or member of the Illuminati.

Yes I know. I began with "don't bother with people who..." and then went on about that. It wasn't directed at you, it was directed at your interlocutors.

Even if he turns out to be the Antichrist? — frank

Well in that case, yeah I'd vote Trump.

Do you believe Tara Reade?

Ah. Got it.