Biden clenches the nomination.

[SupahEwok]

Also, I feel like my point about the earth dying in the next 10 years has been conveniently ignored. But atleast Biden will lie about loving gay people, and that's what really matters.

Maybe he does. Maybe the Reade allegations are to cover up him grabbing men "by the pussy".

 

[Trunkage]

It must be said, it is impressive that people actually buy into the very obvious lies that the democratic leadership tells about caring for minorities. And that the people here are willing to fight so fiercely on behalf of their owners, while meekly accepting that they know nothing will ever change.

Pretending to like them is better than hating them. Its the lesser of two evils. Plus, it has wing that IS pro-minority, even if they are continually on the outside

 

[Sneed's SeednFeed]

You remind me of The Lunatic.

You suggested that the concentration camps for Asian Americans was justified, so I have no misconception about where your views and morals lie. Anarchy is just stupid, seriously stupid. When there are no rules, how do you even enforce that? Any enforcement inherently ends the status of Anarchy.

I said they were publically justified to the American people and this was done within the legality of wartime America, or does stating facts, however uncomfortable they are, that you live in a historically racist country who continues to justify violence towards whoever it labels as 'the other' somehow mean you support that? In which case, are you just illiterate?

And I don't believe in a politics of enforcement, or a politics of capitalism. If you fear anarchy then relegate yourself to the dustbin of history where the rest of your reactionary ilk like Dubcek belong.

 

[Sneed's SeednFeed]

Then you might want to choose something else to compare it to since even the underlying moral logic is different.

Prove how it's different and I'll take the point. You've provided nothing to the contrary, and your conception of nationhood makes me think that you tolerate these deportations and detentions and want to make it seem better by comparison.

 

[Sneed's SeednFeed]

Sure, there's a disconnect between the priorities of the voters and the actions of their representatives. But that doesn't mean notions of "left" and "right" only have meanings within parliament. Most ordinary people who have some form of political awareness see themselves somewhere on that spectrum, after all, quite apart from who they vote for.



Oh, alienation from the process is a foreseeable outcome, and to some degree a rational one. But a purely rational cost-benefit analysis shows substantial difference in the policy platforms of Biden and Trump, leaving aside any hypothetical other comparisons.

Refusal to participate is not really an option, because even a refusal to vote still has an impact. It's beneficial to one candidate (the eventual winner) and detrimental to the other (the eventual loser). As such, it assists one candidate over the other. It also sends the message that the parties do not need to concern themselves with winning you over, because there's more to be gained by catering to people who actually vote.

Unfortunately, universal suffrage means there's no such thing as complete non-participation. The choice still has an impact, and it's a bad one.



Their explained reason for what? For not challenging the Board of Elections?

That's your evaluation that it's a bad choice. Left and right are exclusively parliamentarian terms because they both revolve around the decisions and structure of the parliament in question. That people identify with them is proof of their monopoly over political agency, not the essential state of politics as fundamentally revolving around 'left or right'. People's own confusion over their identification within the spectrum is only testament to the alienation of the process itself. If one is left wing but votes right, then what does that entail? What about the opposite?

If that is something that we accept of parliamentarianism, this total divorce of political intention from action, then claiming that somebody is not voting is an appeal to principle, and thus principles can differ. Alienation is not a foreseeable outcome, alienation is the very mode in which parliamentarianism functions. If one is unable to reconcile their intentions with the agency offered to them in the process, then its a decision done in bad faith and ultimately done only to repertuate the system itself. Parties don't care about individual voters, they care about demographics, and the ones that are the most vote-profitable. If a party conspires against certain demographics, then the party already says that they have no interest in representing them in the election itself, or that this will be done on sufferance whilst appealing to a demographic they find more interesting or relevant.

And on the concept of universal suffrage, it presupposes a moral duty to vote. As all state-mandated moral duties, I refuse it totally. I owe nothing to the state, least of all to legitimise it. If crimson wants to do the same due to a combination of clear alienation and due to this refusal to moral impetus, then your argument won't hold any ground. It's a systematic problem that won't be addressed by telling people to participate in it anyway.

 

[Sneed's SeednFeed]

It must be said, it is impressive that people actually buy into the very obvious lies that the democratic leadership tells about caring for minorities. And that the people here are willing to fight so fiercely on behalf of their owners, while meekly accepting that they know nothing will ever change.

A lack of imagination manifests itself as a distortion of truth, a false consciousness wherein the status quo comprises the entire sum of all political horizons. It's easier to imagine a lie then to imagine for the future, since the language for the former comes pre-packaged, and the latter requires the challenge of constructing a language within which to actually voice your unfreedoms.

 

[Silvanus]

No, the board's explanation. That it's to protect people from the Coronavirus. But if they well and truly honestly believe that, it's because they expect the progressive wing to be less likely to show up to the down ballot votes that are still happening, so it's a load of bullshit from the board.

So you see the weakness of the Board of Elections' explanation as evidence that an unrelated organisation is responsible? I'm sorry, you're not meeting any kind of reasonable evidential threshold here.

You should know by now that I value human rights vastly more than any amount of money. No amount of money saved can justify the death tolls and human rights abuses that people like Truman committed.

Yes, but we were talking about what the terms Right and Left mean in common parlance. That's not determined by what we as individuals value more.

I think Truman was monstrous. The system of taxation that existed under him was more progressive than under any President post-Johnson. These are not mutually exclusive.

 

[Silvanus]

That's your evaluation that it's a bad choice. Left and right are exclusively parliamentarian terms because they both revolve around the decisions and structure of the parliament in question. That people identify with them is proof of their monopoly over political agency, not the essential state of politics as fundamentally revolving around 'left or right'. People's own confusion over their identification within the spectrum is only testament to the alienation of the process itself. If one is left wing but votes right, then what does that entail? What about the opposite?

You'd have to ask the individual in question. But it seems rather arrogant to decide somebody's political self-identification isn't valid.

The terms exist in systems that don't even feature a parliament, so that's not accurate. They revolve around the decisions and structure of whatever political body is in charge-- and that's perfectly sensible, since that's what political issues are concerned with to begin with.

If that is something that we accept of parliamentarianism, this total divorce of political intention from action, then claiming that somebody is not voting is an appeal to principle, and thus principles can differ. Alienation is not a foreseeable outcome, alienation is the very mode in which parliamentarianism functions. If one is unable to reconcile their intentions with the agency offered to them in the process, then its a decision done in bad faith and ultimately done only to repertuate the system itself. Parties don't care about individual voters, they care about demographics, and the ones that are the most vote-profitable. If a party conspires against certain demographics, then the party already says that they have no interest in representing them in the election itself, or that this will be done on sufferance whilst appealing to a demographic they find more interesting or relevant.

If someone is entirely unable to reconcile their political intentions with any of the options on offer, then they should write in a candidate, or spoil the ballot. This at the very least actually records their discontent with the options, rather than going down as simple abstention (which can mean anything, including mere laziness).

And on the concept of universal suffrage, it presupposes a moral duty to vote. As all state-mandated moral duties, I refuse it totally. I owe nothing to the state, least of all to legitimise it. If crimson wants to do the same due to a combination of clear alienation and due to this refusal to moral impetus, then your argument won't hold any ground. It's a systematic problem that won't be addressed by telling people to participate in it anyway.

You haven't actually addressed what I said about universal suffrage, though-- namely that refusing to vote is not the same as refusing to participate.

The choice to abstain still benefits one candidate over the other.

 

[Agema]

That's your evaluation that it's a bad choice. Left and right are exclusively parliamentarian terms because they both revolve around the decisions and structure of the parliament in question. That people identify with them is proof of their monopoly over political agency, not the essential state of politics as fundamentally revolving around 'left or right'. People's own confusion over their identification within the spectrum is only testament to the alienation of the process itself. If one is left wing but votes right, then what does that entail? What about the opposite?

I'm not sure that's true. "Left" and "right" originated from parliament, but subsequently have expanded to represent wider political notions. They are necessarily fuzzy terms and can differ in many ways by time and place, can be relative (to each other and other countries), but they do tend to have consistencies as well: the right tends to favour social hierarchy, social order and the status quo; the left tends to represent more egalitarianism, social equality and reform.

There are also ideologies and issues that don't clearly fit as "left" or "right" as well as the variation in what left and right represent. Clearly a person can be generally one wing, but particularly motivated by a specific issue or ideology that drives them to vote for the other. "Left wing" and "right wing" aren't necessarily always that useful at the level of an individual (like for instance BMI in terms of body weight), but are more for the overall state of the political scene in a time and place.

 

[gorfias]

Very odd for Sleepy Joe to do a pro-women's rights video with Hillary.

 

[Seanchaidh]

So you see the weakness of the Board of Elections' explanation as evidence that an unrelated organisation is responsible? I'm sorry, you're not meeting any kind of reasonable evidential threshold here.

I'm not specifically familiar with New York's situation, but it is very reasonable to assume that the DNC is involved with these decisions informally just like they are with many other aspects of state primaries.

 

[Seanchaidh]

But a purely rational cost-benefit analysis shows substantial difference in the policy platforms of Biden and Trump, leaving aside any hypothetical other comparisons.

Have you taken credibility into account?

Trump has none, which hardly matters because it's pretty clear he doesn't want to do much of anything good anyway.
Biden has substantial policy differences, supposedly, but also a reputation for lying out of his ass-- his 1988 presidential bid collapsed due to some bizarre plagiarism and weird lying, and he hasn't stopped with the fabrications since then. He was subsequently part of a presidential administration that was significantly different in the policy it pursued compared to how it campaigned. Now he's adopting some of the Sanders rhetoric (such as framing healthcare as a right) without any of the concrete policy proposals while at the very same time seeking advice from ghouls like Larry Summers. He's also lied in this campaign about various things, including his record on supporting budget cuts to social security, medicare, medicaid, and so on. And he probably can't draw a clock.

 

[Sneed's SeednFeed]

You'd have to ask the individual in question. But it seems rather arrogant to decide somebody's political self-identification isn't valid.

The terms exist in systems that don't even feature a parliament, so that's not accurate. They revolve around the decisions and structure of whatever political body is in charge-- and that's perfectly sensible, since that's what political issues are concerned with to begin with.



If someone is entirely unable to reconcile their political intentions with any of the options on offer, then they should write in a candidate, or spoil the ballot. This at the very least actually records their discontent with the options, rather than going down as simple abstention (which can mean anything, including mere laziness).



You haven't actually addressed what I said about universal suffrage, though-- namely that refusing to vote is not the same as refusing to participate.

The choice to abstain still benefits one candidate over the other.

Just because terms may seem to exist outside of parliament, it does not mean that these terms aren't specified or determined by parliament.As an example, a right to abortion is as much a philosophical as it is a social debate, but it's prevalence of being left or right is relative only to the set of cultural values respectively embodied by the parties in charge. Right-wing parties are seen as traditional, yet they can champion progressive reform, economic and social (in green-conservative parties for example). At the same time, we wouldn't expect a right wing party to be pro-abortion, so the correlate between types of values and parliamentarian alignment holds some weight there. But this is one of many issues, the majority of which tread the line between what would normatively be evaluated left or right wing. I'd like to see your examples of systems that don't feature parliaments and have those terms, since in a globalised system as well as the prevalence of capitalist democracy worldwide (America is an inescapable entitity) and the implementation of these political systems, it becomes a chicken and the egg problem. My money is on it being a socio-historically conditioned term that has no use on the level of individual politics. Where do digital policies fall? What is more left or right in terms of deciding the structure of the internet? Do sex worker rights and legal recognition constitute an exclusively left or right wing practice (keeping it illegal means workers can earn more money, making it legal gives them rights under law, but also requires more income to be declared - the left may want to reduce the level of undocumented income to prevent a shadow economy, the right may want to do this to protect women from violence). The definitions are not useful to me in any level.

As for spoiling the ballot, why go to the step of validating the process overall if you are alienated? A spoiled ballot is still a vote that could've gone to the guy opposing the guy someone else doesn't like. If your spoiled ballot can be construed to help the other guy win, then why go to the extra effort of entertaining the process in the first place? In the vain hope that it will be recognised, even though the motivated voters, at the extreme outcome of this thinking will still have more agency within voting regardless if you voted (and spoiled, which is an empty vote) and if you didn't (the motivated voters still decide the outcome). If you're unmotivated, asking to vote in spite is functionally identical in achieving a political outcome. More moralism to me as before, the same as any other state-mandated 'duty'. The 'duty' extending to pure performance as always, and consequently stigmatising those uninterested in its games.

 

[tstorm823]

But here's the thing. I don't claim that money is inherently evil. But you DO claim that increasing wealth is a good or moral thing. Its a beneficial thing for the benefactor, but I would never call it moral. There is no ethical consumption under capitalism. It is exploititive in nature, and merely taking part in it is facilitating evil. To say it is a moral good is to erect a golden calf. Much like the one that stands in wallstreet.

See, you're not understanding the words. Increasing wealth IS a good and moral thing. That's not saying having more money is itself a moral good. Wealth isn't just Scrooge McDuck pools of money, it's the value of what you own to other people. Something has value only because it is desired. If you take cheap ingredients, make delicious pies, and sell them to someone else, it isn't the act of selling that increased your wealth, it was making the pies. The world isn't wealthier today than in the past because we have more currency, but rather because of the things we have to value. Making pies is a good and moral thing.

Obviously, making pies isn't limited to capitalism or monetary systems, but it's an illustration that wealth isn't fixed. It is a perception that can be created and destroyed. Houses built makes the world wealthier, and when they burn down the world is poorer. You need to understand this, because investors aren't making loans for interest. You gain wealth by investing because you own something, and the value of it increases. When they say someone like Jeff Bezos has made hundreds of billions of of Amazon, that doesn't mean he's siphoned that amount of money out of people's pockets. That's the evaluation of what he owns in Amazon, and that number is so high not because that value was stolen, but because that value has been generated. If Amazon ceased to exist, that wealth wouldn't move somewhere else like it's a fixed value that has to exist somewhere, it just wouldn't exist at all, and the world would be a worse place for it.

Jesus criticizes greed. The wealthy person who won't unload possessions even if it means they can't get through the gate. The tax collector that takes extra for personal enrichment. The man who stockpiles his goods for himself and offers nothing to others. This isn't a criticism of wealth. The opposite is true, because greed ultimately destroys wealth. Greed would have had Bezos sell off his business when he could and just be content that he's got his and he doesn't need to work anymore. Take the money and run. And then Amazon might not exist, and everyone who has benefited from Amazon would be worse off.

You may be thinking "but then he wouldn't be so rich, obviously it's greedier to do what he's done because it's made him richer." But that's not how it works. Greed isn't just whatever behavior makes a person rich. Greed is a flaw, a selfish desire for personal material possessions. The world has no shortage of greedy people who've failed to be wealthy. Because capitalism doesn't reward greed. Capitalism rewards people for the value they can generate for others. An investment isn't a loan with interest. It's putting your money in someone's hands because you believe that person can make the world wealthier with those resources. If what you invested in doesn't help anyone, you don't make any money.

Certainly, I'll admit, there are those who cheat the system. There are greedy people that pervert the system for their own benefit, and we should collectively try to hold them to account. But A) you don't tear something down because of the exceptions where it goes wrong when it goes right so much more often, and B) every single attempt at communism in history has been corrupted by exactly the same bad actors who sometimes get wealthy off of capitalism, except instead of them getting wealthy in communism, they slaughter millions.

 

[Worgen]

Prove how it's different and I'll take the point. You've provided nothing to the contrary, and your conception of nationhood makes me think that you tolerate these deportations and detentions and want to make it seem better by comparison.

I already told you how it is different. deportations of illegal immigrants are morally seen as removing someone who doesn't legally have the right to be in the country, the internment of the Japanese Americans was morally seen as controlling a population that might not be loyal to the US in a time of war and would seek to sabotage US manufacturing and perform additional actions to hurt the US war effort. You could argue that both come from a place of racism, which is pretty true but aside from that they are pretty different.

I was telling you how nations and state develop naturally.

 

[Silvanus]

Very odd for Sleepy Joe to do a pro-women's rights video with Hillary.

Hmm. Branco has also published cartoons belittling Trump's female accusers, insinuating they're mad or deranged. He's pretty damn extreme to the right. It's odder still to see his work used to criticise anybody on women's rights or believing accusers.

Just because terms may seem to exist outside of parliament, it does not mean that these terms aren't specified or determined by parliament.As an example, a right to abortion is as much a philosophical as it is a social debate, but it's prevalence of being left or right is relative only to the set of cultural values respectively embodied by the parties in charge. Right-wing parties are seen as traditional, yet they can champion progressive reform, economic and social (in green-conservative parties for example). At the same time, we wouldn't expect a right wing party to be pro-abortion, so the correlate between types of values and parliamentarian alignment holds some weight there. But this is one of many issues, the majority of which tread the line between what would normatively be evaluated left or right wing.

All this means is that party platforms often don't align perfectly with every expectation of what it means to be "left" or "right". That's to be expected; the terms aren't perfect, they're broad descriptors. Nobody is expecting you to use them without any further explanation: Apply caveats and qualifiers to make clear where the parties differ from usual expectations of left and right.

I'd like to see your examples of systems that don't feature parliaments and have those terms, since in a globalised system as well as the prevalence of capitalist democracy worldwide (America is an inescapable entitity) and the implementation of these political systems, it becomes a chicken and the egg problem. My money is on it being a socio-historically conditioned term that has no use on the level of individual politics. Where do digital policies fall? What is more left or right in terms of deciding the structure of the internet? Do sex worker rights and legal recognition constitute an exclusively left or right wing practice (keeping it illegal means workers can earn more money, making it legal gives them rights under law, but also requires more income to be declared - the left may want to reduce the level of undocumented income to prevent a shadow economy, the right may want to do this to protect women from violence). The definitions are not useful to me in any level.

Who said the terms need to apply to absolutely every policy? Some simply don't fit the diametrics. So what? That doesn't undermine their usage to describe the largest, most wide-ranging subjects of political discussion.

If you don't find them useful on "any level" just because they don't fit a few areas of policy, that doesn't mean they "have no use on the level of individual politics"-- as is shown by the fact the vast majority of people who study, analyse, and research politics (or even those who merely have some political awareness, like informed voters) use the terms.

As for spoiling the ballot, why go to the step of validating the process overall if you are alienated? A spoiled ballot is still a vote that could've gone to the guy opposing the guy someone else doesn't like. If your spoiled ballot can be construed to help the other guy win, then why go to the extra effort of entertaining the process in the first place? In the vain hope that it will be recognised, even though the motivated voters, at the extreme outcome of this thinking will still have more agency within voting regardless if you voted (and spoiled, which is an empty vote) and if you didn't (the motivated voters still decide the outcome). If you're unmotivated, asking to vote in spite is functionally identical in achieving a political outcome. More moralism to me as before, the same as any other state-mandated 'duty'. The 'duty' extending to pure performance as always, and consequently stigmatising those uninterested in its games.

Why ask me? I don't spoil my ballot. I merely said it's preferable to pure abstention, because it at least shows that your decision was not made out of laziness or disinterest.

 

[gorfias]

Hmm. Branco has also published cartoons belittling Trump's female accusers, insinuating they're mad or deranged. He's pretty damn extreme to the right. It's odder still to see his work used to criticise anybody on women's rights or believing accusers.

I don't think Trump poses as a feminist ally, while I think Biden does. Trump will happily say he wants to grab women by the privates but claims he wants a strong economy in which a strong woman can do well.

OTOH though, I do think if elected, Biden will act as an ally, as so many are accused of assaulting women while aiding the cause. He's already said he will discriminate against men when choosing a running mate.
Example of this sort of thing:

 

[Worgen]

I don't think Trump poses as a feminist ally, while I think Biden does. Trump will happily say he wants to grab women by the privates but claims he wants a strong economy in which a strong woman can do well.

OTOH though, I do think if elected, Biden will act as an ally, as so many are accused of assaulting women while aiding the cause. He's already said he will discriminate against men when choosing a running mate.
Example of this sort of thing:

Sargon is a dumb fuck who doesn't even know what a feminist is. Here is a vid of him debating someone who does actually know.

 

[gorfias]

Sargon is a dumb fuck who doesn't even know what a feminist is. Here is a vid of him debating someone who does actually know.

I am 100% certain without even watching that, it does not in any way detract from my previous post in anyway. Even so, I will watch.

 

[deleted20220709]

DELETED