"Enemy of my enemy is my ally" — 180 Proof

:razz: That proverb came to mind when reading along with the Streetlight drama.

Out of curiosity, what do you believe to be the biggest challenges in the short (1-2 years), middle (3 to 10) and long term (10+) for the US? What policies do you think are needed for that and what are the Democratic and Republican proposals there? If you're on the fence on who of the two candidates are personally worse, then what about policy?

Sorry, I'm half following this. Are we supposed to be excited for Biden/Harris?

Excited to get rid of Trump maybe?

I try to keep my feelings out of it, because they don’t really matter. Politics is about doing all you can to help people, which requires a disciplined mind.

Not so hard to explain how one should feel about it though. I’ll be glad that this intolerable fascistic shit show ends, and that the Left now has some breathing room and opportunities, even if it’s squeezing in the cracks. The other half is a frustrating reminder that we won’t have a Bernie Presidency, and all the other shit that comes with the Democrats.

You take out the leading general, and their replacement general is weaker and easier to fight (of course you fight them afterwards) — Saphsin

Aw, you don't fool me. There aren't any generals in chess.

do you think Hunter's involvement with Burisma had nothing to do with his dad being VP and his dad having made prior efforts to clean the place up? — Hanover

It certainly had everything to do with his dad being VP. I would prefer that people not capitalize on their parent's position (are you reading this Ivanka and Jarred?)

Do you really think Joe got zero financial benefit from that or that he had no idea what his little boy was up to?

There's no evidence of it, and fanciful speculation ought not to be reported as fact.

Do you think there is no story here at all and that it ought not be reported by any news outlet other than Fox and that Facebook and Twitter should block it?

I'm fine with reporting facts, and the facts include the murky means by which these emails became available. They also include the content of those emails, along with their dubious authenticity.

I'm not fine with reporting that the facts constitute "smoking gun" evidence that a crime was committed, because they don't in the least. If the emails are accurate, it suggests Biden agreed to meet with someone. Shall we list the people Trump has met with that seem somewhat suspicious?

Err.. it's better to sacrifice a pawn if that helps you avoid checkmate. We should rather kill off their Queen even if they're left with their bishop. The ultimate goal of course is you want to checkmate the opponent, but you can’t do that if you can’t do these small moves.

Of course there are those who are too conservative and only care about saving their pieces, and they end up being killed off and never win checkmate. You have to be both bold going forward and compromising when needed.

“Fascistic”—an adjective often bandied about to describe the Trump administration, but it never turns to be accurate. Meanwhile, an illiberal strain of communo-fascism, with actual concentration camps, slave labor, a national socialism, threatens the world, only to be met by the reticence of self-proclaimed antifascists.

an adjective often bandied about to describe the Trump administration, but it never turns to be accurate. — NOS4A2

I think we've all been gratified to see that he wasnt bright enough to pull off what he seemed to want to.

So yay for whistleblowers.

Giuliani: Even if Hunter Laptop Story ‘Isn’t Accurate,’ Americans ‘Are Entitled to Know It’

This guy is crazy.

I’m inclined to agree with the often overly loose use of the word fascist, but I think he got worse this year and could be even more if he wins again.

Also no idea what you’re talking about for the rest, but it sounds delusional.

I confess I was just being silly.

But chess, when played at high levels, is very much about theory. Some would say it's become too much a matter of theory (Bobby Fischer for one, before he became completely unhinged). And generals aren't necessarily good players. Napoleon was a terrible chess player, but is considered one of history's finest generals. So, one should be careful when comparing chess with politics.

It was an analogy to make a specific point, I think it’s doable even if not perfect.

I get what you’re saying though. I think some are good at transitioning expertise in one area to another context effectively, others aren’t.

Excited to get rid of Trump maybe? — Benkei

Two distinct things

I try to keep my feelings out of it, because they don’t really matter. Politics is about doing all you can to help people, which requires a disciplined mind. — Saphsin

:100: :up: :clap:

What is the alternative here? Another 4-year term of Trump? Another 4 years of a Republican controlled White House (and possibly Senate) that will just gum up the works and not only stifle progress, but go backwards, and undo incremental reforms that will make life worse for all except the rich? And further bungle the crisis we are living in?

I get you find Biden reprehensible, but there is a world of difference between the policies his platform has versus the ghoulish ones on Trump's.

Had this been any other year, your outrage might make sense, but it is hysterical bordering on hyperbole.

We are living in a dangerous time: in the middle of a pandemic, there is social unrest, the wildfires in California, the effects of climate change, an upcoming election, high unemployment, etc etc.

Americans living today probably have not faced as many adversities piled up on top of another. This is no time to focus on the shortcomings of Biden or Harris or the Democrats.

And it's not about Biden sharing extreme left ideas and views that can lead us in the right direction, because such a person does not exist (not even Bernie). It's about pressuring a candidate that will put a more progressive agenda into legislation. The only candidate on the ticket who will take that pressure and demands seriously is Biden. Issues like race and climate change. You can't get anything progressively done as long as Trump is in office.

You lambasted the cult of personalities that make up American politics (which I agree with, and I certainly think Bernie, AOC is just as much included here as Trump, Obama, Bush, etc.), so then let's go beyond just looking at Biden as an individual in office and see the broader impact him in the White House would have.

That's the lesser evil, and I fail to see anything problematic. Any serious tactical struggle for power that doesn’t reduce harm (save soldiers, choosing the right enemies) is normative stupidity. Nothing regretful or abstract about that. What's abstract are all these notions you're bringing it up. It's honestly the kind of characteristic centrist liberals are infected with rather than those interested in realist notions like power and advantage. — Saphsin

At what point does this kind of logic lead one to preferring Gobbels because he's not a Hitler? Or a Beria because he's not a Stalin? At what point does the boiled frog think, well, it's just one more degree rather than five, and that's a pretty substantive difference so despite the fact that I'm boiling to death, well, I'll take what I can get?

I get that this is election is a referendum on Trump and that it is his to lose. What I don't buy is the feel-good bullshit that a Biden win is not an endorsement of the democrats. It is. It absolutely is, and anyone who wants to pretend to think otherwise is lying to themselves in the name of a pseudo-realism that disregards reality. You vote for Biden, you endorse him, you endorse what he's done, you endorse what he's going to do, and you endorse the corporatist ecology that he'll extend, expand, and entrench. Fucking own it.

If Biden wins, you're going to hear endless platitudes about 'mandates' and 'the rejection of hate' and how it's time for 'a new beginning' and so on. And people are going to eat it up, and the people will actually think that this is some kind of victory and not in fact a major loss whose counterfactual was nothing other than an even bigger one. Again, I'm not saying don't vote for Biden. I'm just saying to recognize it for the failure it is, and will be, if he wins - and the contribution to that failure of anyone involved in bringing it about. This shit:

This is no time to focus on the shortcomings of Biden or Harris or the Democrats. — Old Master

is poison. People need to get that crisis is the norm, not the exception. There will never be 'enough time'. It will always be 'too early' or 'too late'. Always some 'other year' in which one is meant to save criticism for.

↪StreetlightX

What is the alternative here? Another 4-year term of Trump? Another 4 years of a Republican controlled White House [ ... ]

I get you find Biden reprehensible, but [ ... ]

Had this been any other year, your outrage might make sense, but it is hysterical bordering on hyperbole. — Old Master

:up: :100:

↪Maw I try to keep my feelings out of it, because they don’t really matter. Politics is about doing all you can to help people, which requires a disciplined mind.

Not so hard to explain how one should feel about it though. I’ll be glad that this intolerable fascistic shit show ends, and that the Left now has some breathing room and opportunities, even if it’s squeezing in the cracks ... — Saphsin

:clap:

:smirk:

At what point does this kind of logic lead one to preferring Gobbels because he's not a Hitler? Or a Beria because he's not a Stalin? — StreetlightX

What's wrong with preferring Goebbels over Hitler, in theory?

At what point does the boiled frog think, well, it's just one more degree rather than five, and that's a pretty substantive difference so despite the fact that I'm boiling to death, well, I'll take what I can get? — StreetlightX

The argument implied here is that, as long as the situation doesn't seem really dire, people will prefer to adapt and accept their oppression, rather than fight back. As a psychological fact, that might be the case. What I don't see is what solution you have in mind.

I get that this is election is a referendum on Trump and that it is his to lose. What I don't buy is the feel-good bullshit that a Biden win is not an endorsement of the democrats. It is. It absolutely is, and anyone who wants to pretend to think otherwise is lying to themselves in the name of a pseudo-realism that disregards reality. You vote for Biden, you endorse him, you endorse what he's done, you endorse what he's going to do, and you endorse the corporatist ecology that he'll extend, expand, and entrench. Fucking own it. — StreetlightX

I have heard that view expressed in a number of conversations with people intending not to vote. The basis for that argument seems to be the abstract idea that votes provide a mandate to the politician who receives it, and therefore entail responsibility for their action.

Interestingly, this argument implies exactly what you have earlier said you oppose: that politics are personal and about the character of persons. Where else could this mandate attach other than to the person being elected?

On a more fundamental level, this view seems to reify the social contract into an actual contract. It turns the idea that government receives it's power from the people and turns it into a literal transfer of power, via the ritual of voting. But that is of course not what actually happens. What actually is the case is that the machinery of the state simply has power, as a brute fact, and we have a bunch of institutions that keep this brute force in check by instilling certain ideas in the people that wield it.

So the question to ask is not whether the government of the United States under Biden somehow receives extra power or legitimacy from your individual vote. It doesn't. The question is whether too large a majority for Biden has any symbolic significance that affects the Institutions of US democracy in a way that should be avoided. And I don't think that's the case.

I'm just saying to recognize it for the failure it is, and will be, if he wins - and the contribution to that failure of anyone involved in bringing it about. — StreetlightX

And if you don't vote, and Trump wins, have you not then contributed to that even greater failure?

That's the situation we're facing. Fail a little, or fail a lot. There's no point in blaming people for trying to pull up from "fail a lot" into "fail a little" territory. Sure, it'd be better if we can pull up into "not fail" territory, but so far as voting goes, which option does that? None of them. That's something that has to be done outside the ballot box. So we should all go do that outside-the-ballot-box stuff as much as we can. But then there's still the question of what to do with this ballot box. Obviously we shouldn't make it fail harder, so our choices are either to let it fail as much as it wants to (not vote), or try to make it fail as little as possible (vote for the lesser evil). That choice should be just as obvious. And then when you're done spending less time than I took to write this post doing that, move on to doing the real work that can make some progress toward not failing at all.

So the question to ask is not whether the government of the United States under Biden somehow receives extra power or legitimacy from your individual vote. It doesn't. — Echarmion

:up: :100:

The state has power and it is going to use it. We should be doing things we can to limit its ability to abuse it. But also, meanwhile, it gives us each a small input on how it uses its power. It's going to use it one way or another, until we can stop it, but if we get some say in how it's used meanwhile, how is exercising that say that a bad thing?

If the man with a gun to your head will take direction from you on where to point the gun, ask him to point it away from your head. At the least it buys you a little time before he points it back at you again, and at best maybe it will open up a better opportunity to disarm him.

I'm getting the impression, @StreetlightX, that you're arguing with voters who actually like Biden or are blind to the failings of the US system. None of those voters appear to be present.

One has to wonder where these phantom people talking about 'not voting' are, because they aren't in this thread. Look, I get it, people need a bit of warming affirmation for the fact that they're voting for a dude covered in blood and stench of drone death, and need a bit of a group therapy where they can be stroked gently by some comfort-figure telling them that it's all OK because they're doing it for the greater good. Well sorry but there is no comfort. Every option is the worse option (which does not mean "Trump and Biden are the same"), and every option involves your direct contribution and complicity in it. Voting, for Biden, for Trump, not voting, whatever.

And none of this is an attribution of blame. The reduction to the state of wretchedness in which one is complicit in the installing a cockroach into power is all the worse because yeah, you really don't have much choice do you? The choice is obvious because that's all you get - it's what you've been reduced to. Justify it all one likes with haughty discussions of social contracts and institutions or whatnot. The whataboutism (but what about the alternative???) is just that - whataboutism. My remarks are not a commentary on people, individuals, who vote - they are about the situation in which these people find themselves in.

:up:

What I don't see is what solution you have in mind — Echarmion

Ditto. Second the complaint. Less outraged whining, more constructive specifics please.

Years ago I did a stint as a political activist, organizing public meetings etc. It was educational. I came to realize that, generally speaking, politicians who succeed in getting elected to do because they are realistic about the public they serve. And, we the public are mostly full of crap. Again, and again, and again times ten I saw people stand up in public meetings before the cameras and yell, "Somebody needs to do something!" But the somebody they had in mind was almost never them.

The people who did the actual work of that cause we're typically the nice little old ladies who sat way in the back at the public meeting and never said anything. That's who showed up to do the work when the cameras weren't rolling.

Professional politicians understand that we in the public are mostly child-like creatures who are full of crap, and so they talk down to us in the language that we deserve. And they do so largely without cynical hostility, they're just being realistic. We are what we are, and so they deal with the reality.

Politicians are a mirror in which we can see ourselves. When we don't like the image that appears, we yell at the mirror.

I'm not really sure where anything you're saying is in conflict with what others (including myself) are saying.

It's the simple reality that either Trump or Biden is going to be President. You can vote for Trump to increase Trump's chance of winning, vote for Biden to increase Biden's chance of winning, or vote for neither (either by not voting or by voting for a third party) to not influence the outcome at all.

If Trump winning is a worse outcome than Biden winning then it's pragmatic to vote for Biden. Biden might be terrible but that doesn't mean that there isn't a good reason to vote for him.

Aron Ralston cut off his arm to escape being trapped by a boulder. Having your arm cut off is obviously a loss, but it's better than dying. And Biden being President might be a loss, but it's better than Trump being President.

Pragmatism vs principle. Hardly as uncontroversial as cutting your arm off to avoid dying.

I'm not really sure where anything you're saying is in conflict with what others (including myself) are saying. — Michael

I don't think so either. I haven't been arguing against voting for Biden. At best and I've been grasping my way at trying to show what a vote for Biden entails, and taking that seriously.

What I don't buy is the feel-good bullshit that a Biden win is not an endorsement of the democrats. It is. It absolutely is, and anyone who wants to pretend to think otherwise is lying to themselves in the name of a pseudo-realism that disregards reality. You vote for Biden, you endorse him, you endorse what he's done, you endorse what he's going to do, and you endorse the corporatist ecology that he'll extend, expand, and entrench. Fucking own it.

Wow, Christian Morality runs deep even among philosophical atheists...

Personally I don't believe in sin or the necessity of shame or essentialist nature of actions or anything like that. I'm a virtue consequentialist, and I adapt my moral actions to what's most effective for myself and their predictable effects on others in the world.

If I’m pushing a button that chooses which President I want to fight, then that’s what I’m doing. Not endorsement. Your shouting doesn’t change the intent or nature of the action.

Even if hypothetically it actually is an endorsement or whatever, if the difference between the candidates results in saving the life of one person, I’ll do it, and even more so when its many lives. That's what matters and the other concocted moral thick concepts are comparably trivial.