No, your point was that I overestimated popularity. I didn’t.

Your second point was how I underestimate how difficult it is to pass legislation. I didn’t— but that’s a different issue.

You want to shift (1) into (2), but that’s your own doing. Popularity for a public option and passing a public option in congress, where one may need GOP support (although that wasn’t necessary in 2021 or 22), are separate issues.

It’s like saying Trump isn’t unpopular because Republicans polled support him by 90+ %. Kind of a strange thing to do.

It showed that only 40% support of Republicans for a public option, and 25% supporting medicare for all. — Relativist

Republicans. Good try. Bye.

What makes you think it's nonsense? Is there some end-point in any liberalism, conservativism, or anything else? — Relativist

Something so general and so irrelevant is nonsense to me — but maybe vacuous is better.

You overestimate the popularity of the things you listed — Relativist

No, I don’t. Take a look at any reputable polling on the issue. Public option — child tax credit — taxing the wealthy — child tax credit — unions, emissions reduction, etc. All have majority support, some well over 2/3rds.

the ease with which they could be passed, — Relativist

Which I’ve discussed at length for several years. In fact I created a thread devoted to it. There’s plenty that could have been done, with democrat control of Congress. I mentioned Manchin and Sinema — but there ways around that, if the willingness was there.

and the negative consequences (real and perceived) of any specific proposal. — Relativist

No. I’ve discussed this at length as well. Plenty of negative consequences associated with these policies. See the climate change thread for examples, to name one issue.

A political problem for social liberalism is that there is no reachable goal. It can only ever be a direction. — Relativist

Eh, that’s kind of nonsense. Or one could say the same thing about conservatism, or anything really. Just an east slogan for those who like to talk in generalities— because the actual work of details is too time consuming.

The fact is there were plenty of concrete measures that could have been taken, that were very popular, and that would have helped the majority of Americans. Take a look at the first proposals of the reconciliation bill. Or the PRO act. The child tax credit— Medicare for all, or a public option. Raising taxes on the wealthy. Declaring a climate emergency. Cutting defense spending. Etc etc. To say nothing of disastrous foreign policy decisions.

Those are all very real and very popular policies. Not just a “direction.”

2) each positive step typically has some negative consequences for some. — Relativist

Yes, and the little that WAS done had some negative consequences, which the right wing will gladly hammer forever.

Trump’s crony achieved in a few hours what Biden kept pretending to want for 15 months. Not a great look for Democrats. Will Trump continue to defy the Israel lobby? Who knows.

Most of these executive orders are silly or performative. Some are outright ridiculous. The most stupid, and most damaging, are the environmental policies. But none of this was unexpected.

Here’s to shrinking the government (except for the parts that benefit the rich), cutting taxes for the rich, cutting regulations for the rich, having billionaires run agencies that oversee their industries, and new ways of denying climate change — for the next 4 years! Hazzah!

In this American political era, whoever has the best story (fiction or non-fiction) wins. Period. Facts, other than who's giving the most money to who, are irrelevant in politics. In 2020, the story of the overbearing rich taking advantage of middle America won. In 2024, the story of overbearing liberal progressives destroying America won. — alleybear

You’re right— but why some stupid stories and explanations are even accepted depends largely on evened people are afraid or unhappy. Biden and democrats could have done a lot more to help the majority of Americans instead of taking baby steps.

True, a lot of things were blocked by the reactionary courts or thwarted by Sinema and Manchin— but that’s only some of the story. He could have pushed as much as Trump is pushing now— and he didn’t. He half-assed it. So he lost.

The right is great at solving problems that they fabricated — like the emergency on the border that doesn’t exist, or the energy emergency that doesn’t exist, or guys playing in women sports that doesn’t exist. Maybe tomorrow jaywalking will be whipped up to be the problem of our time. Sounds ridiculous- but give it 3 months on Fox News, and we’ll all be talking about it. Like the “stolen election” bullshit.

So stories matter, but mostly vulnerable people fall for them. Social media have helped this process along.

Yeah, we knew about fossil fuel burning producing CO2 and that CO2 was a greenhouse gas back in the 19th century. By the 1950s, it was becoming obvious. By the 70s, it was very obvious — even by Exxon scientists, whose predictions have been remarkably accurate.

Reagan was the point at which most things turned around for the worse. We will be — and are — living with the consequences for decades.

With Trump now in office, we’ll be lucky to cap at 2.5 degrees— which is catastrophic for billions of people. It’s not wonder there’s as much denial about it as there is about death— or there was about cigarette smoke.

During the beginning of the second era of idiocy, this thread stuck out to me as perhaps worth revisiting.

My answer has increasingly become more solid: it’s not worth engaging. The area to attack is distribution of resources, education, and media.

What a surprise that the cybertruck guy was a MAGA nut. :rofl:

'Why is this warming period different and more concerning than all them other fluctuations?' — unenlightened

Well it isn’t, you see, because I’m super smart and skeptical and have spent 5 hours reading Bjorn Lomburg. Nothing to worry about because it gets hot sometimes and has been really hot in the past and the scientists are all part of a groupthink dilemma, or are shouted down if they disagree…or bought by whoever funds them. One of those anyway.

Also, carbon dioxide is actually good for plants. And what about water vapor? And what about the global cooling scare of the 70s? And what about Leonardo DiCaprio and Al Gore taking private jets around the world? And what about…

If you assume there’s no wrongdoing on the corporate side — which is obvious here — then there’s no need for nuance. It’s black and white: a business dude was murdered. Unacceptable.

Denying people medical coverage to further line your pocket— just fine. Why? Because it’s indirect. Or done with good intentions or something.

We should all be hoping that this man’s death leads to something as good as a radical change in the US healthcare system— this way his demise wouldn’t be in vain. Or maybe even better gun control laws.

As for Brian Thompson the man— who knows? Probably was a nice guy. May have even disagreed with the BS system we have in place, but was hamstrung by it. His murder is in many ways a result of the corrupt, morally vacuous system he was a leader in.

Cool. Hope you grow up eventually.

You're arguing that this instance of first degree murder was perhaps good? — Hanover

Yes, that’s exactly what we’re saying. If that’s too much for your delicate sensibilities and black-and-white “moral compass,” so be it.

As adults, however, it’s worth looking at the reasons why people do things. Even things we wouldn’t do and don’t agree with. Whether it’s the decisions of a leader of a business that is directly/indirectly responsible for thousands of deaths, or a man who is more directly responsible for one death. Whether it’s Hamas terrorists or Israeli terrorists. Or United States terrorists.

Or we can be children and only do so when it’s our “side” doing the killing. Then, suddenly, the killing is more nuanced and done with the best of intentions.

No thanks.

The murderer did not address the issue, clarify the issue, or make the world in any way a better place. — Hanover

Actually, I’m not sure about that. That sounds good— it’s what you hear all the time by guys like Josh Shapiro. It’s conventional and comforting. But there’s been a LOT of talk about the healthcare system this past week, and particularly the jubilant/indifferent response in many circles.

Whether that spotlight ends up making the world better, who knows. Imagine if it led to even something like a public option — that would be better indeed.

US has rejected public healthcare — Hanover

They have not done so. They haven’t been given the option.

Anyway, fuck this guy. I’m not in favor of murdering people you don’t like, but people are murdered every day— it’s only when it’s a rich dude that there’s a national manhunt. That’s what’s irritating.

The issue isn’t with the CEO, it’s with the corrupt, immoral, profit-over-people system that leads to his existence.

It’s almost exactly like Twitter. They do a better job copying it than “truth social” does.

They said Threads was gonna challenge Twitter too, and that died so who knows, but right now it looks like it’s trending as an alternative to Elon Musk’s cesspool.

Compare to more sober, boring, ordinary news channels. — jorndoe

Tik Tok and all the rest — something like 50% of users aged 18-29 use it to catch up on politics — are much flashier than Frontline or 60 Minutes, let alone reading a paper. That’s just the way it is right now. It’ll change, but whether for better or worse I have no idea.

One of the better takes I’ve read:

https://apple.news/AEToGjqpLR4aQxsRScVmgVA

Absolutely true. But…there’s still a majority in this country that isn’t into Trump. They didn’t turn out for Harris like they did for Biden, and there’s good reasons for that too. That’s the other side of the coin.

It's very telling of the entire republican party being so ignorant and bad at speaking out against these creeps — Christoffer

Yeah, there’s really no parity. Both parties are bought by corporations and are comprised of wealthy people educated at Ivy Leagues, generally — but anyone not locked in the “go team” red/blue tribalism can still see the differences. These nominees are beyond satire.

It’s just that people have stopped caring. They don’t trust anything, they don’t know anything, and they’ve now been influenced by something even worse than “mainstream media” — social media “influencers” and memes. :vomit:

They’re isolated on their information islands, transported there by big tech algorithms, addicted to their phones — all for profit. Not a great situation. You see it in polls where it’s asked if the stock market is doing well and Republicans say it’s awful, when it’s at record highs. I assume the same can be done with Democrats.

We’re no longer in the neoliberal era, it’s claimed. We’ll see. Biden was neoliberalism lite, Trump is just an idiot — so anything is possible. But what eventually emerges will be interesting to see. And how it disseminates to the masses via this strange media landscape.

So the teenage girl-screwing creep is out of the mix — oh, what high standards the GOP has!

If only the Democrats were "anything else". — Benkei

:up:

As mentioned earlier, Bernie had the support of the people, so that's a good hint at what type of Democrat the people actually want. — Christoffer

:up:

Looks like Trump will get under 50%. Hillary did better than he has this time in the popular vote, winning by more.

So much for a landslide and a mandate. But we’re witnessing the peak of Trumpism, regardless. And what amazing leadership picks so far— Dr. Oz, a supplement-peddling charlatan; Matt Gaetz, a Dr. Seuss-looking teenage girl enthusiast; Linda McMahon, straight from the world of wrestling— obvious pick for education; and of course several climate deniers to lead the EPA, Energy, and Interior. Perfection.

4 years of this clownshow and people will be begging for literally anything else. Which is good.

Perhaps it was a little harder to pull off a steal this time. — NOS4A2

:lol:

Case in point.

:up:

Very true— although liberal leaning establishment media go right along with most of it too. The “border crisis” especially.

There is no border crisis, and there never was.

Amazing to watching the GOP manufacture issues by taking non-problems and statistically insignificant events and blowing them up into a “crisis,” and the inevitable see everyone gradually jump on board.

Trans issues, the border, immigrants, Iran, Muslims, critical race theory, ESG, DEI, voter fraud, the national debt (only while Democrat in office), etc. All complete bullshit. They’re masters of proposing solutions in search of problems. I remember how each one of these started, in the infancy of their propagandic journey — it’s been enlightening watching the evolution.

Then it’s fun to watch the lemmings in the press, the Democratic Party, and all the way down to goofy internet posters on Reddit, Twitter, and even here, tacitly accept the framing and react accordingly — all while the planet burns and wealth inequality gets wider.

That’s it, really. It’s strange— because they’ve come to be convinced that these services, which other countries have, is unaffordable, or will raise taxes, or both. Plus stuff about shrinking government and pulling yourself by your bootstraps. All old, tired, evidence-free reasoning.

In the richest country on earth, it’s scandalous that we don’t have the same healthcare as Britain or Canada.

On the other hand, we’ll make it through it. The damage to the environment is the worst part, because we’re out of time already and see the damages all around us, season after season. But the rest — trashing civil service, deportations, just general stupidity — will still happen and probably be worse than last time. The small progress Biden made with FTC, SEC, and NLRB will be reversed— so more monopolies, union destruction, and corruption on Wall Street.

But we’ll survive it, and hopefully come back stronger and better organized.

Sanders is too far left. — T Clark

No he isn’t. Which is the point. His ideas are good and popular— separating him from these proposals and saying he’s somehow too far left is absurd.

But I suppose we can keep pretending that going farther and farther right will eventually pay off.

If only there were a candidate that focused on working class issues, had popular proposals, took no corporate money, and had an energized, diverse coalition. It would be an example Democrats could emulate. Alas, no such candidate exists.

Oh wait…

Gomer Pyle, Secretary of Agriculture

‘Fossil Fuels Are Still Winning’: Global Emissions Head for a Record

In the United States, carbon dioxide emissions are expected to drop modestly this year, by around 0.6 percent. America’s emissions from coal are now at their lowest levels in more than 120 years as utilities continue to retire their older coal-burning power plants.

At the same time, however, U.S. electricity demand has soared to record highs as a result of scorching summer heat waves and a rapid build-out of data centers. That has led to record demand for natural gas, which emits about half as much carbon dioxide as coal when burned for energy.

China, the world’s largest emitter, saw a small increase in emissions this year of around 0.2 percent. That’s a notable shift from the past few decades, when China was building hundreds of coal plants to fuel breakneck growth and carbon dioxide emissions were rising sharply each year. But experts say it is too soon to say whether Chinese emissions might be on the verge of peaking.

In recent years, China has built more solar arrays, wind farms and electric vehicles than any other country. At the same time, China’s rate of economic growth has slowed, with sectors like construction and heavy industry cooling off after decades of rapid expansion.

“If these trends continue and renewable power keeps up the pace, it’s conceivable that emissions will decline or at least stay flat after 2024,” said Jan Ivar Korsbakken, a senior researcher at CICERO who studies Chinese emissions. But he also cautioned that some forecasters had expected China’s emissions to decline this year, and that didn’t happen.

:up:

It’s compelling. But who really knows? I don’t. I feel like Bernie would have done better, but he would have had the entire Democrat establishment after him— twice as much as that short window in early 2020 when he looked like he would win the nomination after Nevada, and there were 3 or 4 op-eds in the NY Times every day just trashing him, with idiots like Bret Stephens losing their shit about him being the nominee and vowing never to vote for him EVER, even voting for Trump if he were nominated.

Given that, who knows if he would have pushed through?

https://thephilosophyforum.com/discussion/comment/946451

Posted in the wrong thread.

calling transgender people liars and delusional, — Christoffer

They’re not liars or delusional. The claim is that what is delusional is the belief that you can change sexes. I’ve seen no convincing evidence to counter that argument— but I’m open to hearing one.

Probably a topic for another thread though.

can’t substantiate your beliefs — NOS4A2

:rofl:

Satire couldn’t be as good.

Let’s pray that the Republicans eliminate the filibuster at long last. They’re in the majority, they should be able to do what they want.

Trump has been pushing it and still continues to, and that’ll be great news if it succeeds. Bad news for the country and the world in the short term, but very good news going forward.

http://youtube.com/post/Ugkx6lUc_MaNQISSDqlFrVSf1TJYCrMQRAzI?si=WfJnZhykg46Zh7vK

He has it basically right.

Frank states it better:

I have been writing about these things for 20 years, and I have begun to doubt that any combination of financial disaster or electoral chastisement will ever turn on the lightbulb for the liberals. I fear that ’90s-style centrism will march on, by a sociological force of its own, until the parties have entirely switched their social positions and the world is given over to Trumpism.

Can anything reverse it? Only a resolute determination by the Democratic Party to rededicate itself to the majoritarian vision of old: a Great Society of broad, inclusive prosperity. This means universal health care and a higher minimum wage. It means robust financial regulation and antitrust enforcement. It means unions and a welfare state and higher taxes on billionaires, even the cool ones. It means, above all, liberalism as a social movement, as a coming-together of ordinary people — not a series of top-down reforms by well-meaning professionals.

That seems a long way away today. But the alternative is — what? To blame the voters? To scold the world for failing to see how noble we are? No. It will take the opposite sentiment — solidarity — to turn the world right-side up again.

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/09/opinion/democrats-trump-elites-centrism.html