Election 2020

[Sour Masher]

Sour Masher, that Donahue clip from '81 is one of my all-time favourites. I love it because he's so incredibly consistent, but also because they act so surprised that he won in a traditionally Republican district, and give him a chance to explain his appeal to independents. 39 years later, same exact messages.

They can't attack Bernie for being inconsistent, or lying, or flip-flopping, or corruption. They've got "Venezuela", socialism, etc.

Yeah, hard to find a better candidate if you want to vote for integrity and decency over what we have now. Call me a capitalist pig, but I believe more in regulated and constrained capitalism than Bernie, and think some of his solutions, like free higher ed for all, go farther than they need to, and thus cost more than they need to, but I really like the dude. At thus point, my biggest concern with him is his health. A distant second would be his ability to get his ideas passed. He has not had a lot of success as a outsider in Congress. But as president, he will have a much more powerful voice, and a mandate, so I do think the attacks on how thin his legislative accomplishments have been in Congress are not all that compelling to me.

Also, if he gets elected, I hope he moves Green up his agenda, even if it means giving a little on health care and education. I have not heard him talk a lot about prioritizing green, though I know it has long been something he cares about. But you have to pick your battles, and I hope he picks that one.

[GwynnInTheHall]

Yeah, hard to find a better candidate if you want to vote for integrity and decency over what we have now. Call me a capitalist pig, but I believe more in regulated and constrained capitalism than Bernie, and think some of his solutions, like free higher ed for all, go farther than they need to, and thus cost more than they need to, but I really like the dude. At thus point, my biggest concern with him is his health. A distant second would be his ability to get his ideas passed. He has not had a lot of success as a outsider in Congress. But as president, he will have a much more powerful voice, and a mandate, so I do think the attacks on how thin his legislative accomplishments have been in Congress are not all that compelling to me.

Also, if he gets elected, I hope he moves Green up his agenda, even if it means giving a little on health care and education. I have not heard him talk a lot about prioritizing green, though I know it has long been something he cares about. But you have to pick your battles, and I hope he picks that one.

This is something I've wondered about---If you think he can't get anything passed, then why does it matter if some of his platform goes too far?

[Sour Masher]

This is something I've wondered about---If you think he can't get anything passed, then why does it matter if some of his platform goes too far?

Because I do want him to get stuff passed. The problems he addresses are real. His solutions head in the same direction as I think they should. Some just go a little farther than I think they should. But is he capable of building a coalition given how far left of center he is of nearly every other politician, including pretty much every Democrat?

Trump has been able to get a lot done as an outlier, but that is because is agenda has largely been in line with the ideology of most Republicans.

[Sour Masher]

I found this to be a fascinating read: https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/fut...enry-kissinger

[Teenwolf]

I found this to be a fascinating read: https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/fut...enry-kissinger

I strongly disagree with the premise and nearly all of the conclusions of that article.

The cancel culture calling for Joe Rogan's head on a pike is both idiotic and disingenuous. Rogan himself said every candidate had asked to be on the show.

I also think that Rogan has made a real leftist shift in the last few years. I found this to be a good discussion about the Rogan controversy.

[DMT]

I found this to be a fascinating read: https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/fut...enry-kissinger

I couldn't finish it, but I'm high.

[Sour Masher]

I strongly disagree with the premise and nearly all of the conclusions of that article.

The cancel culture calling for Joe Rogan's head on a pike is both idiotic and disingenuous. Rogan himself said every candidate had asked to be on the show.

I also think that Rogan has made a real leftist shift in the last few years. I found this to be a good discussion about the Rogan controversy.

The article seems to be earnestly trying to avoid conclusions, aside, perhaps, from having some opinions about Rogan that I think are too harsh. Did you read it all? I am surprised you disagree with how it lays things out.

What I found fascinating was the articulation of the moral talking past each other that seems to happen on the left between consequentialist (in general terms, Sanders supporters fit this category) vs those who tend to have deontological moral standards (more traditional liberal). The article helped me understand the consequentialist perspective more fully. I found the question of whether an endorsement from Henry Kissinger, responsible for the death of many, many thousands, and a podcaster who I find is fairly innocuous and decent 99% of the time a thought-provoking contrast. I found it interesting that in the culture we live in, helped by how effective the lobby and organization of specific marginalized groups, the outrage against Rogan gains great contrast, because he doesn't like the idea of trans-woman fighters fighting with born-biological women (admittedly, this isn't all that got traction), has far outstripped the outrage of the Kissinger endorsement. I found the Powell endorsement of Obama really complicated, by race, by intention (I do not consider Powell to be "bad" in the same way I do Kissinger, even though he too made decisions that contributed to the death and pain of many thousands).

In all, I came away appreciating both perspectives more fully, but really understanding and being swayed a bit more toward the consequentialist perspective of the hypocrisy and absurdity of calling out Sanders for accepting Rogan's endorsement and giving a pass on those whose actions have actually harmed people vs Rogan, who has offended some on occasion. I think the article does a good job of calling out the specious nature of the moral superiority of those who denounce in total anyone who has said a mean thing about any protected class of people, while being kwel with those who have not said a mean thing about them, but have supported policies that impoverish and kill thousands and millions of lives. But it also tries to show why folks see what they consider hate speech different from those who engage in earnest actions they think are right, but end up very wrong and damaging.

In that light, it seems pretty absurd to clutch one's pearls at a Rogan endorsement, but shrug at a Kissinger or maybe even a Powell one. I must say, it rings true to me that cancel culture seems obsessed with "hate speech" but never seems to organize with such fervor over real, consequential actions of a lot of people who get a pass, because they only committed the sin of enabling geoncide or starting wars, not the sin of telling some people which bathrooms they can't use (I don't mean to belittle this issue, really, but it does seem a lesser offense, when put in contrast to many we laud as morally righteous, and speaks to the fundamental divide in how different people on the left see morality).

So, again, I am really surprised, assuming you read it through, that you found the piece disagreeable. I think it is more a defense of Sanders and his supporters than it is anything else. Unless you are mad at it for being unfair to Joe Rogan, or its attempts to be a little understandable to deontological views (and even then, he uses Kant to ultimately tear them down as too rigid) I don't see where you would disagree with it.

[The Feral Slasher]

The article seems to be earnestly trying to avoid conclusions, aside, perhaps, from having some opinions about Rogan that I think are too harsh. Did you read it all? I am surprised you disagree with how it lays things out.

What I found fascinating was the articulation of the moral talking past each other that seems to happen on the left between consequentialist (in general terms, Sanders supporters fit this category) vs those who tend to have deontological moral standards (more traditional liberal). The article helped me understand the consequentialist perspective more fully. I found the question of whether an endorsement from Henry Kissinger, responsible for the death of many, many thousands, and a podcaster who I find is fairly innocuous and decent 99% of the time a thought-provoking contrast. I found it interesting that in the culture we live in, helped by how effective the lobby and organization of specific marginalized groups, the outrage against Rogan gains great contrast, because he doesn't like the idea of trans-woman fighters fighting with born-biological women (admittedly, this isn't all that got traction), has far outstripped the outrage of the Kissinger endorsement. I found the Powell endorsement of Obama really complicated, by race, by intention (I do not consider Powell to be "bad" in the same way I do Kissinger, even though he too made decisions that contributed to the death and pain of many thousands).

In all, I came away appreciating both perspectives more fully, but really understanding and being swayed a bit more toward the consequentialist perspective of the hypocrisy and absurdity of calling out Sanders for accepting Rogan's endorsement and giving a pass on those whose actions have actually harmed people vs Rogan, who has offended some on occasion. I think the article does a good job of calling out the specious nature of the moral superiority of those who denounce in total anyone who has said a mean thing about any protected class of people, while being kwel with those who have not said a mean thing about them, but have supported policies that impoverish and kill thousands and millions of lives. But it also tries to show why folks see what they consider hate speech different from those who engage in earnest actions they think are right, but end up very wrong and damaging.

In that light, it seems pretty absurd to clutch one's pearls at a Rogan endorsement, but shrug at a Kissinger or maybe even a Powell one. I must say, it rings true to me that cancel culture seems obsessed with "hate speech" but never seems to organize with such fervor over real, consequential actions of a lot of people who get a pass, because they only committed the sin of enabling geoncide or starting wars, not the sin of telling some people which bathrooms they can't use (I don't mean to belittle this issue, really, but it does seem a lesser offense, when put in contrast to many we laud as morally righteous, and speaks to the fundamental divide in how different people on the left see morality).

So, again, I am really surprised, assuming you read it through, that you found the piece disagreeable. I think it is more a defense of Sanders and his supporters than it is anything else. Unless you are mad at it for being unfair to Joe Rogan, or its attempts to be a little understandable to deontological views (and even then, he uses Kant to ultimately tear them down as too rigid) I don't see where you would disagree with it.

I thought it was reasonable, though a bit long as DMT noted, ha ha.

[The Feral Slasher]

I thought it was reasonable, though a bit long as DMT noted, ha ha.

i do wish Bernie had not retweeted the Rogan stuff.

[Teenwolf]

I guess Sour Masher illustrated the point better than the article did for me. Thanks.

[Teenwolf]

i do wish Bernie had not retweeted the Rogan stuff.

Clearly his promotion of Rogan's endorsement allowed the media to attack him over it. Do you wish he hadn't given it the signal boost for strategic reasons or moral reasons? I wonder if it would have been smarter not to highlight it, but I think strategically it helps more than hurts.

[B-Fly]

Bernie is starting to look like the clear favorite to me right now. Not only is he leading in Iowa and New Hampshire but today he showed +6 over Warren and +11 over Biden in California. So just as I'd urge Sanders supporters to commit to support the eventual Democratic nominee because of how important it is to replace Trump, I urge those who dislike Sanders or who are turned off by Sanders supporters to commit to support Sanders because of how important it is to replace Trump. Whether it's Biden, Warren, Sanders or somebody else, I am all in for November, no equivocation. And right now, Sanders is executing the best campaign and earning his polling trend.

[In the Corn]

Bernie is starting to look like the clear favorite to me right now. Not only is he leading in Iowa and New Hampshire but today he showed +6 over Warren and +11 over Biden in California. So just as I'd urge Sanders supporters to commit to support the eventual Democratic nominee because of how important it is to replace Trump, I urge those who dislike Sanders or who are turned off by Sanders supporters to commit to support Sanders because of how important it is to replace Trump. Whether it's Biden, Warren, Sanders or somebody else, I am all in for November, no equivocation. And right now, Sanders is executing the best campaign and earning his polling trend.

As a moderate, and a someone who has been very displeased with Trump, I find it hard to let the pendulum swing so far the opposite direction. I'm afraid the Democrats are going to pick someone so far-left that the middle just won't be left with a mainstream candidate they can feel good about.

[B-Fly]

As a moderate, and a someone who has been very displeased with Trump, I find it hard to let the pendulum swing so far the opposite direction. I'm afraid the Democrats are going to pick someone so far-left that the middle just won't be left with a mainstream candidate they can feel good about.

And yet, just as in every presidential election cycle, either the Republican nominee (Trump) or the Democratic nominee will be the next president, so moderates are going to have to decide whether they want to influence the outcome directly by voting for one of the two candidates with a chance of winning, or indirectly by withholding a vote from either of the two candidates with a chance of winning.

[In the Corn]

And yet, just as in every presidential election cycle, either the Republican nominee (Trump) or the Democratic nominee will be the next president, so moderates are going to have to decide whether they want to influence the outcome directly by voting for one of the two candidates with a chance of winning, or indirectly by withholding a vote from either of the two candidates with a chance of winning.

So vote for the lesser of two evils? Perhaps what the middle is doing is punishing both parties by withhold their votes because there is no alignment. So by being deaf to the middle, these two parties are the reason for the decline in the Republic.

Incremental change...