Logic lesson: I have an apple. I've refused to give my apple to Joe or Don. Therefore, I did not give my apple to Joe or Don. The fact that I would have given my apple to Joe if Joe hadn't (probably) raped Tara still does not mean I gave my apple to Don. And it doesn't matter how many apples other people give to Joe or Don or what the consequences of giving them are, not giving an apple to Joe can never be equivalent to giving an apple to Don not least because nobody can get my apple unless I give it to them. Further, if I give my apple to third party Jesse, I also did not give my apple to Don because I only have one apple and Jesse can't give my apple away once I give it to him. Finally, the right to give or not give my apple to whoever I want is fundamental to what it means to have a friggin' apple in the first place.

How do you like them apples?

When anyone asks me what it is, I just show them this.

My top priority is addressing the climate crisis, as this is an existential threat. — Xtrix

If I really thought Trump's further reign would make a huge difference globally on climate, it might sway me but, having read your last detailed post on it, I don't think even you believe it's decisive.

Even strategically, the long term better strategy is to withdraw support from the Dems, at the very least until they become something like a left wing party. But as per street above, I think it's ultimately a systemic problem and your ability to resist is being whittled further and further away until eventually the people will be so weak the state will just be able to stomp all over them literally as well as figuratively. I don't have a very good answer here. But I can recognize a bad one when I see it.

the only option is Exit, not Voice. — StreetlightX

Yes, voting for Biden as the lesser of two evils just kicks the problem into the ever-lengthening grass.

@Xtrix

What you're doing from this point of view is making things worse in the long term for some minor short-term gain.

OK -- and what framework is that exactly? — Xtrix

The framework that says everyone has to vote for a Dem or a Republican no matter who they are, or what they've done, or even what policies they have (as long as they're not as bad as the other guy).

That's another angle on it, yes. Some people actually believe in the principle of voting for those who most represent them, both in terms of policy and character, regardless of strategic considerations. And if everyone voted that way, the two party system would eventually cease to exist because it relies on a despairing cynicism for the most part. In fact, that is the only way out of it.

@Xtrix Our whole argument is based on rejecting the diseased framework on which your arguments are premised. So, we're not going to see eye to eye.

This is what I responded to. Why didn't you quote that?

And voting in a rapist.

But feeling morally superior for sitting and doing nothing. Kudos. — Xtrix

Was this "shaming"? — Xtrix

Yes.

I'd advise you to go back and read what you said about @neonspectraltoast and the arguments you used to support that. Maybe I should have just described them as "gibberish" instead of "stupid". Other stuff you said previously did give me some insight, but accusing someone of supporting a rapist when that's exactly what you're doing (by your own contention that Biden is guilty) and what they're refusing to do, I found annoying. The pragmatic stuff I just disagree with.

I've cited Chomsky a number of times, for example. If I'm in the same "idiotic" league as Chomsky, I take it as a compliment. — Xtrix

So you've cited Chomsky. And? Far as I know, Chomsky made a pragmatic argument which I've not criticized (though I may disagree with it). It's the attempts at vote-shaming I've been objecting to. And it's those that destroy your credibility, not your pragmatic arguments, which I can see some reason in.

It's not improbable because politicians abuse their power all the time. And in this particular case, Reade reported the exact same story at the time to her neighbor and others. I think it's more likely true than not based on those facts alone. So, why do you think it's improbable?

@Xtrix

It's not an ad hom, you are literally saying extremely stupid things. For example, by your logic, abstaining from voting means voting for Trump and Biden simultaneously (why would it only mean voting for Trump?) and voting for a third party must mean voting for Trump, Biden, and that third party simultaneously. I'm not engaging with you anymore until you stop that. I think you're doing it on purpose.

The accusation against Biden does not make sense to me. It seems to me to violate what a famous lawyer called "the rule of probability." That is, in the particulars it seems too unlikely and improbable. — tim wood

No it doesn't. It's not only very probable, it happens all the time. E.g. Trump, Clinton. What planet do you live on?

There's an OECD report out (I'll have to try to dig it up) that predicts on current trends (under Dem and Republican leadership) America is going to look like the Philippines or Brazil within 50 years and, to your point, even the most social democratic states in Europe will have deteriorated to the level America is in now.



First of all, there are potential third party options, so abstaining is not necessarily the only way to not vote for a rapist. As for your "logic", if you can't work out how stupid what you're saying is you should not be on this forum. It is literal nonsense.

It's pathological as you said. The attempt to shame someone else for refusing to do what they themselves are doing.

Anyway, also from the article and worth quoting:

"That brings me to my fourth transformation: as a result of depression, an economy’s whole structure tends to change. As groups, classes, segments. Think of America not so long ago. It’s structure resembled a bell curve. A broad middle class, a small number of rich, and a larger — but still small — number of poor. And then around 2010, for the first time, America’s middle class became a minority. The gentle bell curve was on its way to becoming something more like a U-shape: a caste society of very rich, and everyone else: the imploded middle and the old working class who became the left-behinds, all of whom became the new poor, that 80% living paycheck to paycheck.
Coronavirus will accelerate that change, too. America’s already dying middle and working class will finally crumble and coalesce into one vast permanent underclass. America will have effectively a massive pool of something very much like easily, algorithmically exploited technofeudal neoserfs — people who’ve reverted to servitude to make a living, only their overseer is an app. Those “low income service jobs” are economists’ jargon for “people becoming servants again.” To whom? To a kakistocracy, if you like — a class that’s the opposite of aristocrats, who were supposed, at least, to the best and brightest. America’s ruling class is now visibly made of predators, the kinds of men who put men in cages, or addict a whole society to painkillers, just to make more money they’ll never spend."

And voting in a rapist. — Xtrix

No, that would be you. You've just said you believe Reade.

Jesus, this is like me telling someone if they don't punch someone in the face just like I'm going to, they're guilty of battery.

But this is the kind of thing that the system generates. — StreetlightX

Speaking of what the system generates and how that's currently being accelerated.

"Coronavirus — or more accurately — the lack of response to it will probably finish off what’s left of the American economy. America will end up a country with permanently lower levels of all the following: employment, income, savings, trust, happiness, assets, and so forth. America was already in the process of becoming something very much like a poor country, with the failed politics of one, too — but Coronavirus will accelerate and finalize America’s grim transformation into poverty, paralysis, and collapse."

https://eand.co/the-american-economy-is-imploding-and-america-is-too-e998d3cfb1d9

Politely telling the Dem vote shamers where to go while explaining to them why they're wrong.

Why can't we have even a single nice thing these days?... — VagabondSpectre

You can imagine a twisted backroom plan where the Dems and the GOP got together and agreed to both put up rapists for president as a sick demonstration of how they have the American public so cowed and trained that the vast majority of voters literally cannot imagine any alternative to the point where many of them will rabidly attack, mock, and pillory anyone who suggests there is one. High fives all round for the one-vulture two-wings party.

My principles? I refuse to be affiliated with a rapist in any way. I'm not going to celebrate a rapist. — neonspectraltoast

Respect. :clap:

If that was Biden, I might be worried. :lol:

Wow! ObAMaCoMeYBidEnGAte!

@praxis @Nils Loc :starstruck:

Hey @Amity :smile:

No thanks.

Obamagate. :lol:

Trump knows something. — NOS4A2

First time for everything.

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.

:yawn:

That's bound to be stressful. — frank

I imagine what's stressful is not knowing the absolute fundamentals of politics and economics, such as what neoliberalism is, while at the same time trying to play the role of teacher to posters who are far more knowledgeable than you on just about everything. No amount of name-calling is going to make up for your deficiencies, frank.

It's like with Obama, he superficially seems like a nice guy and the presumption is that that can't easily be faked. That's a cognitive speed bump that shouldn't be difficult to get past, but somehow it's persistent.

I see the immediate issue and I understand your position, but the existential threat in my view is the two-party system itself not one or other party. That's where we differ.

E.g. "Apple Inc (AAPL.O) on Monday capitalized on the Federal Reserve’s emergency measures in response to the coronavirus outbreak to issue its cheapest bonds in years, making it the latest blue-chip company to do so to fund stock buybacks and dividends.
...
Apple's offering illustrates how companies with the best credit ratings are boosting shareholder returns by tapping cheap debt made available through the Fed's backstopping of the credit markets. "

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-apple-debt/apple-borrows-on-the-cheap-to-fund-buybacks-dividends-idUSKBN22H001

Most of the stimulus money and Fed support went to corporations who used it to help boost their own stock. (I read (or heard) somewhere that 90% of the move up from the recent low was due to buybacks, but I'd have to check the details on that as under the CARES act they're not supposed to do it directly). Anyway, the stock market is fine, which means the GOP Senate is not going to help you any further. And the Dems have taken care of their donors too, so you're on your own. Some here are of the view you have no choice but to vote for one of these loathsome parties in November, regardless. I suggest you give them both the same finger they've just given you.

:pray:

If it's true, I don't begrudge her any benefits she may get from it. If it's not, then considering she told the same story thirty years ago to several friends, this would be one hell of a long-term Machiavellian plot. I suppose I just have no problem believing Biden is the kind of scumbag who would do what she said he did, especially if you go back and look at video of him at that time (now he just appears pathetic), whereas I do have a problem believing she made this up thirty years ago in order that she might eventually get something out of it now. So, unless it's demonstrated that she's seriously mentally ill, I'm going with the obvious conclusion (and I think the case here is even stronger than the Blasey Ford one given the corroborating evidence).

Edit: Just to add, I hated Lindsey Graham's outburst at the Kavanaugh hearings, but now I realize he was right, Dems don't give a fuck about women. It was pure politics.

BUT, by and large, both parties and both candidates are rational servants of the class to whom they are indebted. Neither Trump or Biden is going to piss off the capitalist elite by doing anything rashly destructive to their interests — Bitter Crank

This seems obvious to me but it's just not sinking in.

There was probably more controversy in the MSM in 1988 over Biden being accused of plagiarism than there is now of him being accused of sexual assault. How far we've come... (Judging by the video, the guy is apparently a serial liar btw).

BUT... no PUBLIC mention of any rape or sexual assault by Ms Reade until a couple months ago. Why? — 0 thru 9

Maybe she was intimidated by those out there who would try to tear her down, or by Biden and the DNC themselves, and the implications for her ever having a career, but in the end the thought of the guy who sexually assaulted her (if he did) becoming President became too much to bear. That's perfectly plausible.

These are serious accusations, of course. Accusations that would warrant a prison sentence if true. There should be a serious inquiry or trial. Public testimony under oath. — 0 thru 9

Yes, exactly. As there was with Kavanaugh. Same thing. Try to get to the bottom of it. Either that or he stands down.

Let’s suppose that Biden is forced to step down from the nomination because of his actions. Should Trump be likewise be forced to not run for a second term, because of his multiple sexual assault accusations (which he has gleefully admitted to)? — 0 thru 9

Ideally, yes.

The system is broken, and it is depressing and nauseating. I am not sure if those living in countries other than the USA really can completely feel that. Though I appreciate any objective and thoughtful critique. — 0 thru 9

Plutocracies are not nice places to live in if you care about politics at all. Or are not stinking rich.