That's exactly what your argument is, that Biden is better on climate change. — boethius

No. My argument (so glad to know I have an argument now) is that given two choices, Biden is clearly better. Climate change is one example, and a good one.

Do we have to go over what “example” means, or do we need to incorporate “argument” and “fallacy” first? Maybe first principles…

so really by "significant difference" you mean zero practical difference but some difference in rhetoric, which you claim is important. — boethius

No, I mean significant. In comparison to Trump — who, again, believes it’s a hoax.

That you don’t know the impact of the IRA or EPA policy isn’t my fault. Your ignorance on this matter is indicative of the general struggle to determine who’s “better.” So again, my point is proven: you’re just not paying attention. I’ll be happy to go over the details— but I won’t hold my breath. I’m sure you’ll go on pretending that you’re an expert instead.

When I pointed out that climate change is only one dimension of evaluation you then respond to that just repeating your point about climate change. — boethius

You know, there’s an easy way to see what happened: go back and read.

I didn’t respond by repeating the point about climate change, I responding by explaining that climate change is ONE EXAMPLE.

“One dimension.” Laughable. It’s called an example. But please keep trying to intellectualize something a child can understand.

Not only have you presented no reason to believe Biden's duplicitous rhetoric, i.e. corrupts utterings in service of the oil lobby, is any better than Trump's overt utterings in service of the oil lobby in terms of consequence, you just ignore the other subjects such as Biden's complicity in a literal genocide. — boethius

No— this is your fabrication. I quoted what both men have said about climate change, which is evidence enough — but beyond that, mentioned the IRA of Biden and Trump policies and actions, including appointing an oil lobbyist as head of the EPA, as further evidence beyond simple rhetoric.

That you don’t remember any of this is your problem, not mine. Your delusions of “What happened” are pathetic, when there’s a clear record of it. Just scroll up.

Then, your guy, backs, finances, arms, helps coordinate, carries water for and covers with gaslights, encourages to "keep doing what they're doing", in participating in a literal genocide and it's "nothing to see here". — boethius

Which is why I’ve been condemning Biden and US policy both in Ukraine and Israel for years…also easy to look up.

God you’re delusional. (“My guy.” Lol.)

You provide one dimension of analysis, don't even argue that, then dismiss all the other dimensions of analysis in just stating Biden is better on everything. — boethius

No: I provide one example (and then many others), gave evidence, and have acknowledged your apparently one-track issue (war) many times, both here and for years on this forum.

But keep living in a fantasy if you want to. Pure strawmen — that’s all you’ve got so far, because you’re too childish to slow down and read carefully enough to comprehend what’s being written to you.

Sorry, but your self-serving narrative is blinding you from the reality.

The reality is this:

1) You made a ridiculous statement about there being “no basis” to determine whether Trump or Biden will be “better.”

2) I give one example where the differences both in ideology, rhetoric, and policy are stark.

3) You blather on about how that is “one dimensional analysis,” a “fallacy,” and “not an argument.”

4) Then you make up a bunch of bullshit out of thin air, creating strawman after strawman. Since that’s all you’re apparently intellectually capable of engaging with, I don’t blame you.

I’ll ignore the rest of your unlettered response. I’m sure it’s more of the same. Since you’re arguing against an imaginary opponent anyway, I don’t really need to be involved. The record is quite clear.

Trump versus Biden isn’t a hard choice.

That doesn’t mean Biden is “my guy,” it doesn’t mean his policies have been great, it doesn’t mean his foreign policy should be ignored, it doesn’t mean he shouldn’t be criticized, it doesn’t mean he’s a good man, etc. It means exactly what I said in response to your ridiculous statement: given 2 choices, one is clearly worse than the other and we should vote against the worse one.

Very simple. Yes, I know you struggle with it— I’m clear. It’s clear you don’t find it simple or easy. But as I’ve said several times, the reason for this is that you’re not paying attention; you’re ignorant. That’s understandable when you’re focused almost exclusively on foreign policy — if I were in your shoes, perhaps I’d be confused to. But even on that point, there’s no good reason to believe a demented, megalomaniacal degenerate will do any better on foreign policy.

The fallacy is taking one dimension of evaluation and claiming it's conclusive. — boethius

Strawman.

I never did that. I gave ONE example that demonstrates ONE way in which there are significant differences and in which one administration is clearly better — which was in response to your difficulty determining such.

You are welcome to make the argument that Biden's complicity in genocide is a "no biggy" or even a positive. — boethius

Strawman. I never once said that. Stop making things up.

You are welcome to make the argument that advancing geriatric dementia in the president isn't a war risk — boethius

Strawman.

(But who are you talking about, Trump or Biden? Both are geriatric. Claiming only Biden is off his rocker is swallowing right wing propaganda wholesale. Not a surprise.)

What I'm pointing out is you haven't make any such argument, you've just blurted "Mahhhh! Climate Change!!" which isn't an argument. — boethius

One has done the most of any president for climate change; one says it’s a hoax. That to you amounts to “Mahh climate change!”? Are you just a child?

You could make a nuanced argument that, while we both agree Biden is a terrible candidate who shouldn't be president, he's not as bad as Trump — boethius

I do so, and more than happy to get into the weeds about each one:

So is environmental destruction. So is a judiciary that wants to take rights away. So is giving tax breaks to the wealthy and exacerbating inequality. So is trillions in student loans and making it impossible for students to cancel them. — Mikie

Your response:

Simply stating that Trump is worse on all issues of concern isn't an argument. — boethius

So pointing out that Biden is far better on climate change “isn’t an argument.” Pointing out numerous other ways Trump is worse also “isn’t an argument.” So cool: you don’t know what an argument is.

As an aside: I see a pattern among members who aren’t that bright but who want to sound bright: claim everything is a “fallacy,” and use the phrase “That isn’t an argument” — like a magic wand, just wave it over anything you don’t like, can’t understand, or can’t engage with.

Remember how this started. I’ll remind you, since you’ve clearly forgotten:

I honestly don't see any basis that a Biden administration would likely be better than a Trump administration — boethius

So my point stands: you just haven’t paid attention. A Biden administration is better and will be better than a Trump administration, on nearly every metric.

What there’s no basis for is the belief that Trump will do any better on Israel. There’s some reason to think he’d be “better” on Ukraine, in that he’ll let Putin do whatever he wants (and will thus end the war), but he’s such a geriatric dementia patient it’s impossible to predict. Even so, it doesn’t negate every other way in which he’s simply awful — and which you want to ignore. So you’re not just ignorant, but willfully so. (But let me guess: that’s “not an argument.”)

It’s not a hard choice.

President Biden has done more to address climate change than any of his predecessors. So far, voters don’t seem to care.

https://www.wsj.com/politics/elections/biden-is-spending-1-trillion-to-fight-climate-change-voters-dont-care-21d8cb05?mod=mhp

:chin:

At least nice that the reactionary Wall Street Journal acknowledges his climate bona fides.

I posted an article about the decision by the Arizona Supreme Court and said this decision will clinch this battleground state (in which the polls are currently even/showing Trump leading) for Biden.

You respond with “that seems unlikely given the 2020 results.” But he won in 2020, so why his winning in 2024 seems unlikely given the winning results in 2020 makes no sense.

But maybe you meant something else, like given the small margins Biden won by it’s unlikely he wins this time, given the current polls, or whatever. Just lazily worded, and misses the point.

Clear enough? Cool.

I am aware. — AmadeusD

:ok: A+

But that seems unlikely given the 2020 result for Biden. — AmadeusD

He won Arizona in 2020.

Arizona Reinstates 160-Year-Old Abortion Ban

So they just clinched a Biden win in Arizona. Cool. :up:

current administration is literally completely engaged in financing, supporting, helping to execute and then just gaslighting everyone about a literal genocide and you're bold enough to say one administration is "clearly better than the other" based on a single naive example — boethius

Climate change is an existential risk. So that example is particularly relevant. But there are multiple others— that was one, yes. I’m not basing my entire judgement on that one example, though. (Some might argue that’s a kind of “fallacy” on your part.)

True, I don’t like Biden’s foreign policy either. I see no reason to believe Trump will be better about that.

If you want to twist yourself into a pretzel to continue believing that both are basically the same, or there’s no reason to believe one is “better” than the other, then you go right ahead. But you really aren’t paying attention in that case.

but not so close attention that you wonder if the covert climate change and service to the oil lobby of the democrats is actually worse than an overt climate change denial and service to the oil lobby of the Republicans — boethius

The democrats have been better on this, beyond question and on every metric. The IRA alone is point enough. I’ll gladly get into the details if you’d like. But ask yourself what Trump would do — actually, we don’t have to imagine. We know what he did while in office: took us back 10 years. Appointed an oil lobbyist as head of the EPA and withdrew from the Paris Accords.

Also, there are two choices. It’s Trump or Biden. No one likes that, but that’s the reality. Given those choices, there’s no point pretending it’s a hard decision.

Yes, supporting genocide is sickening. So is environmental destruction. So is a judiciary that wants to take rights away. So is giving tax breaks to the wealthy and exacerbating inequality. So is trillions in student loans and making it impossible for students to cancel them.

With Trump you get all of the above. With Biden, you get one: now-wavering support for Israel. Trump would not be the least pressured by or concerned with anti-genocide protests.

It’s not the same, it’s not equal, it’s not hard to see which is worse. The choice is not difficult.

The fallacy you're engaging in is one dimensional comparisons based on the two whole strawmanning my position as having said they are exactly the same. — boethius

No— I used one example to demonstrate both a very big difference and how one administration is clearly better than the other. It happens to be an excellent example, given the stakes of climate change.

My statement was that there's no reason to believe Biden is any better. — boethius

Exactly. Which is absurd and, I’ll repeat (accurately); if this is your conclusion, then you’re not paying attention. Plain and simple.

But I always love being lectured about “fallacies” in a plodding, undergraduate-level way. My suggestion is to read less philosophy— it’s not doing you any good here.

It should take any human being older than 7 about 10 minutes to determine who the worst candidate is. That you’re struggling with it isn’t my business. I’ll ignore the rest of your diatribe.

We definitely agree on this point. — boethius

Then you’re simply not paying attention. Take one example:

Biden: “Climate change is a problem we have to address.” Passes biggest climate bill in history — the IRA.

Trump: “Climate change is a Chinese hoax.”

You: “I see no difference.”

Sorry, but it’s sheer idiocy. You may not like either choice— neither do I — but let’s try to face reality. The whole “no difference between parties, they’re all corrupt” line is about 20 years out of date. Now it’s primarily used by those who know exactly nothing about either party, or their policies.

The differences are, in fact, stark. It takes effort not to notice.

Watched the Revenant (2015), An Officer and a Gentleman (1983), the Godfather (1972) and Anywhere But Here (1999)— in two days while under the weather.

All good. Godfather the best. The worst probably the Revenant — although Tom Hardy deserved an Oscar.

gets more independent voters
-wins 5-7 out of 13 "swing states" (and 1-2 "red states" (e.g. NC) again like 2020)

2. Dems wins US Senate (+2 seat gain)

3. Dems win US House (+20 seat gain) — 180 Proof

In terms of independents, I’m not so sure anymore. But the question is will it be enough, given the goofy electoral college?

I’m thinking he loses NC and Georgia, and probably Arizona. But he wins the blue wall — making swingy states like New Hampshire and even Nevada very important. I’d watch Florida too, although I don’t think there’s a great chance there anymore.

You’re way off with the senate. Looks like the Dems are gonna lose that chamber, unfortunately. Manchin’s seat is an easy flip, and Montana and Ohio it’s very hard to say but looks like Republican edge. Not to mention Arizona. I see republican +2 but if not then democrats 50-50 at best.

The house I agree— I think dems take it. New York being de-gerrymandered alone should do it.

(Writing this out now so you can throw it at me later if I’m wrong.)

Yes, the simplistic nickelodeon morality crew that condemns those who breach a neighbor's fence, enters his home, murders a family and sets fire to a baby in a crib. — BitconnectCarlos

That wasn’t the question.

Also, it’s very easy to condemn. Which I’ve done and any rational adult would do. The difference between you and me is that I’m capable of also condemning the murder of Palestinians, which is far greater in number.

What you do, as an educated adult with a semblance of rationality, is look at the specific situation, the context, the power dynamics, the decisions and actions, and the justifications— you then make a moral assessment.

Taking all this together, this situation is very clear. This war is an outcome of a brutal, protracted occupation by a US-backed state with overwhelming financial and military power. The history is very clear for anyone willing to look at it, and today’s actions are also very easy to understand. This is why Israel is becoming a pariah state and world opinion, including the US — where over half the country disproves of Israel’s actions — has completely turned on them.

True, it’s impossible to see if you presuppose everything Israel does is defensive. Same is done by US jingoists. — Mikie

You fit well into the latter camp. But keep up the good work of defending genocide. You’re doing god’s work I’m sure.

Riveting.

Oh look, a sanctimonious Twitter troll giving advice. Cool! :up:

There isn't one. — AmadeusD

There’s plenty, actually. For those paying attention. But please keep the substantive Tweets coming.

You could have not made your comment. But you did. — AmadeusD

Brilliant observation.

True, I like to respond to banal, sanctimonious bullshit when I see it— occasionally.

Says the bore who goes around commenting on discussions he’s not involved in to demonstrate his self-righteousness as an empathic communicator. That existence must be a healthy one indeed, I’m sure.

You continue to astound. — AmadeusD

And you continue to bore.

the US is waging a proxy war against Russia that Ukraine is being caught up in" is about as misleading (or helpful/relevant) as "North Korea / Iran waging proxy war against Ukraine" — the Kremlin started the war against Ukraine whom are defending (including what they wanted) — so, misdirection or "blindness" or something — jorndoe

It is a proxy war between the US and Russia. Easy to see why.

It’s like you’re incapable of posting anything clear. Maybe spend less time playing with links.

It’s a proxy war between the US and Russia. Not hard to see that— been discussed plenty of times. You don’t see it — cool. I don’t care.

That's says it all of this member and his contribution to this discussion. — ssu

Crawling out of the woodwork to repeat, line for line, the standard excuses for genocide.

No wonder the world isn’t buying it.

But it’s not surprising that one thinks this way when one has no real basis on which to draw morality from. — Moses

Correct— it’s not surprising that one accepts the flimsy justifications for murdering and maiming children because it comes from one’s team, like you do.

while attempting to minimize casualties — Moses

They’ve done a wonderful job so far.

Because it’s done with fancy equipment from a distance, with nothing but noble invisible intentions in their hearts, we’ll give them a pass. Then lecture about the “morality” of others.

It’s as funny as taking an ethics class taught by a Nazi sympathizer. Not really funny at all— but ironic.

And no it wasn’t done out of “desperation” . — Moses

I never said “desperation”, so don’t put it in quotes.

I like this thread. It presents a good death watch so we can be on the look out and not be surprised when someone drops off. — Hanover

Every time I see or hear a name, or come across some legend on Wikipedia that only has a “born” date, I add it to the list. Robert Wagner? I couldn’t believe that he was still alive.

Some people seemed old even when I was a kid, like the same age they are now. Which is strange, because from a certain perspective they haven’t aged in 40 years.

Ukraine should agree to a negotiated settlement before they lose more land. What a shame it didn’t happen years ago. So many lives could have been saved.

It’s frustrating that Russia will win this and seemingly get away with an illegal invasion. I feel for the Ukrainian people being caught up in this proxy war.

It’s like saying the native Americans occupy America. Makes no sense. — Moses

Yeah, I’m sure if a Native American came to your home that has been in your family for a couple hundred years and told you it’s now his, you’d have no problem with it.

What a stupid argument.

intentional murder and unintentional death — Moses

Yeah, it’s easy: when Israeli does it, it’s unintentional. When Hamas does it, it’s intentional.

Got it. :ok: Brilliant, groundbreaking analysis once again.

All death is not equal and to view it as such reveals a moral blind spot. — Moses

Yes, 1,400 and 30,000 are by no means equal. I’m not too interested in whose pathetic justifications you accept or reject. You swallow Israel’s but very easily reject Hamas’. I reject both— but they’re by no means equal…Hamas has a stronger case.

Scholars have compared October 7th to the Nat Turner Rebellion…the analogy is apt. The atrocities were awful, but when you drive people to such actions, there’s a lot of blame to go around.

group that has been in an armed conflict that isn’t evil or bad? — Moses

Fortunately for me, I don’t belong to the simplistic Nickelodeon morality crew.

—

For others:

What you do, as an educated adult with a semblance of rationality, is look at the specific situation, the context, the power dynamics, the decisions and actions, and the justifications— you then make a moral assessment.

Taking all this together, this situation is very clear. This war is an outcome of a brutal, protracted occupation by a US-backed state with overwhelming financial and military power. The history is very clear for anyone willing to look at it, and today’s actions are also very easy to understand. This is why Israel is becoming a pariah state and world opinion, including the US — where over half the country disproves of Israel’s actions — has completely turned on them.

True, it’s impossible to see if you presuppose everything Israel does is defensive. Same is done by US jingoists.

Political analysis:

When they do it, it’s grotesque terrorism.
When we do it, it’s counter-terrorism.

Meanwhile, 15,000 dead children and counting. (But it’s definitely not terrorism— it’s done with high-tech equipment, after all. Much more civilized way to murder and maim incident children. With good intentions sprinkled on top.)

Are they the bad guys? — Moses

They are also bad, yeah.

But don’t tell me: Israel kills more people, but accidentally or with good intentions. So they get a pass.

:yawn:

I/P is a religious issue — Moses

No, it isn’t.

I know they’ve never visited the conflict zone. — Moses

Yes, because you’ve proven such a valuable expert on this topic so far.

Political analysis: Hamas bad. Saw Indiana Jones, so Nazi bad.

Hamas = Nazis.

Perfection.

It’s like Nazis dying — Moses

Not one original thought in your little head, eh?

. No one says “oh but won’t killing nazis just lead to more nazis??” — Moses

In this case, that’s exactly what I’m saying — because that’s what’s happened. The more the occupying force oppresses and murders a population, the more radicalized it will become.

The Nazi comparison also works very well for Likud. They’ve killed far more people than Hamas ever has. And now conducting a genocide before our eyes while buffoons on the internet talk about World War 2, their one historical reference.

You should be rooting for Israel’s success unless you want Israel’s destruction and radical Islam to prevail. — Moses

:rofl:

Hamas will be genocided and the world will be better for it. — Moses

They’re not being genocided; the Palestinian people are.

At this point Israel has no choice but to go into Rafah. — Moses

They certainly do have a choice.

Who only puts out 80% of a fire? — Moses

Decimating Rafah won’t put out the fire. It’ll only create more of it.

New polls show that Americans overwhelmingly (79-80%) support Israel over Hamas — Moses

You’re like a Likud PR associate. Get some new material.

Yes, Israel over Hamas — not what Israel is doing to Palestinians. Or can you not separate the two?

Four stupid statements in only one paragraph. Too bad.

No, I was a philosophy major. We thought about big ideas. Like how dumb it is to try to draw a definitive line in this conflict where "everything begins." — BitconnectCarlos

Exactly. But it’s odd that you’re the one asking for such a stupid thing.

Tell me, O wise one, when does it all begin? — BitconnectCarlos

What a stupid question.

Not a history major, I see.

Would Biden do anything meaningful on climate? — boethius

It’s a mixed bag with Biden. He’s producing more oil and gas than any president I think, has allowed drilling, approved the Willow Project, etc. Yet the IRA was passed which will do some good — although that was very watered down. He’s done some other things which aren’t terrible.

Overall, I’m not super enthusiastic, but he’s infinitely better than going backwards. Rhetoric also matters on the world stage. The US official position wanting to do something about it is important— the President saying it’s a Chinese hoax is also important, negatively.

I honestly don't see any basis that a Biden administration would likely be better than a Trump administration — boethius

We just disagree here. There’s no question Biden is better. The judiciary alone is a reason. Baby steps towards climate policy is another— and there has been some progress. Compared to literally going backwards, I don’t think there’s much to think about. It’s also hard to believe Trump would do anything about Israel. If anything, he’ll go even harder with supporting the genocide. He may be less hawkish with Ukraine— that could be beneficial. Otherwise I see no redeeming qualities. He’s a danger we can’t afford.

I hope most of these trials are postponed till after the election. If Americans want to vote for a climate denying, election denying, neoliberal fraud — then let them.

If he loses, it’ll be nice to know that’ll be the last of Trump. If he runs again he’d be 82 and his businesses would likely be in shambles, having been abandoned by the establishment financially and unable to draw off as much money from average dupes. The RNC will choose someone younger as their nominee in ‘28. Maybe Haley, Maybe Desantis, maybe someone yet unknown.

If he wins, America will get a reminder of how awful he was, and it’ll be his last term. 2028 won’t come soon enough. Legislatively he likely gets nothing done, but will probably appointment more appellate and Supreme Court judges (it’s likely the senate flips to republicans this year). His actions will likely reinvigorate the left— again — and there will be a large electoral backlash in 2026.

My main problem will be the 4 years lost in climate policy — which we truly don’t have — and the fact that the judiciary will be all but Trumpified for a generation, making it harder to get anything done even when the inevitable backlash hits.

Too many posters on this thread are looking through glasses - lenses - encrusted with junk. The templates they see that they think are derived from the world are instead artifacts of defective optics. — tim wood

Weren’t you the one saying you consider October 7th to be the beginning of this and that nothing prior matters?

Yes but please do lecture us more about “defective optics.”

seem to think the Israeli have a choice. I think they don't, — tim wood

Yeah, it’s just a law of nature that one must murder 30,000 innocent people and starve a population, more than half being under 24.

But of course this doesn’t apply to Hamas. They had a choice when they murdered. Israel has no choice. Because they always have the best intentions.

I get it. I’m far from a supporter, of course. But I have no faith in the Republican Party, and am beaten down with the facts— which is that his supporters are large enough and loyal enough to push him through almost anything.