Biden clenches the nomination.

[Silvanus]

Edit: Also, as I think I've mentioned, I don't support trump. I only hope that his existence will push the country further left. Which, as I've mentioned, is not that alien of an idea in Marxist Leninist circles. There are well respect marxist thinkers who are of the same opinion. I already posted Zizek.

And how do you imagine that this will come about? In what timeframe?

Take a look at the impact that 4 years has had on what is considered acceptable. Boasting about sexual assault; openly holding financial conflicts of interest; touting racist conspiracy theories; firing FBI directors because they won't shelve an investigation; praising white supremacists.

Before Trump, the idea of a President doing this kind of stuff would be considered dubious and unlikely. Then the last 4 years occurred. What's the outcome on the Overton Window there? Did it make the American public so disgusted that they shifted to the left?

Bollocks did it. It's becoming normalised, and Trump's continued incumbency will push the country ever further to the entrenched right.

And if you're imagining some subtler impact over the course of many decades-- decades which, of course, may well see the Supreme Court dominated by Trump's appointments; his influence isn't going away when he's out of office-- then I can only ask on what grounds you could possibly criticise gradualism.

 

[fOx]

And how do you imagine that this will come about? In what timeframe?

Take a look at the impact that 4 years has had on what is considered acceptable. Boasting about sexual assault; openly holding financial conflicts of interest; touting racist conspiracy theories; firing FBI directors because they won't shelve an investigation; praising white supremacists.

Before Trump, the idea of a President doing this kind of stuff would be considered dubious and unlikely. Then the last 4 years occurred. What's the outcome on the Overton Window there? Did it make the American public so disgusted that they shifted to the left?

Yes. No one was arguing about trans bathrooms ten years ago. We were still arguing about the legality of gay marriage. Every major political candidate for president was scared to suggest that they support gay marriage, including Obama. Socialism was a slur being used by the right. Now it's socially acceptable. Things like universal healthcare, and free college, were not even worthy of discussion. There has been a massive, overwhelming move to the left over the last ten years, and anyone who says otherwise has a short memory. If Trump had run in 2000, I don't think most of his statements would even be seen as outlandish. The overton window has already shifted, and people don't even seem to realize it.

Bollocks did it. It's becoming normalised, and Trump's continued incumbency will push the country ever further to the entrenched right.

And if you're imagining some subtler impact over the course of many decades-- decades which, of course, may well see the Supreme Court dominated by Trump's appointments; his influence isn't going away when he's out of office-- then I can only ask on what grounds you could possibly criticise gradualism.

Gradualism doesn't work, we do not have time. I've said this so many times. We need direct action now. On a larger scale then even the civil rights movement. You can that that's impossible, but that's only true if everyone throws their hands in the air, and gives up. We can't just wait for the boomer generation to age out. We need young people to come out and represent themselves now. The planet is dying.

 

[Silvanus]

Yes. No one was arguing about trans bathrooms ten years ago. We were still arguing about the legality of gay marriage. Every major political candidate for president was scared to suggest that they support gay marriage, including Obama. Socialism was a slur being used by the right. Now it's socially acceptable. Things like universal healthcare, and free college, were not even worthy of discussion. There has been a massive, overwhelming move to the left over the last ten years, and anyone who says otherwise has a short memory. If Trump had run in 2000, I don't think most of his statements would even be seen as outlandish. The overton window has already shifted, and people don't even seem to realize it.

The Overton Window on certain areas of social politics has shifted... as it has done throughout the developed world. Only generally slower in the US.

And you believe this is brought about by hard-right governments?

Gradualism doesn't work, we do not have time. I've said this so many times. We need direct action now. On a larger scale then even the civil rights movement. You can that that's impossible, but that's only true if everyone throws their hands in the air, and gives up. We can't just wait for the boomer generation to age out. We need young people to come out and represent themselves now. The planet is dying.

And why do you think we have so little time?

The patterns of extreme weather, climate breakdown etc, are exacerbated by the politics of the extreme right. They are severely worsened and sped up by deregulation, deforestation, pollution. One candidate will increase these devastating phenomena a lot more than the other. One will give us less and less time. You cannot appeal to limited time and simultaneously give the green light to the candidate who will restrict it most.

I should not have to point out how this is high-stakes gambling with peoples' lives: to allow this to continue at greater speed, betting on the untested hope that it'll finally disgust enough people to cause a complete reversal.

That approach has accomplished precisely nothing in the climate fight. The Paris accords were brought about by diplomacy, not by opening the door to catastrophe in the hope of a sea change.

 

[Saelune]

Said as an attack against arguing for left wing candidates, and in defense of electing Republicans (D).

"ITT: Privileged straight white men tell the blacks, women and LGBT people we deserve to suffer. "

I mean, to be fair, those in glass houses...

So no, you can't prove it, because it did not happen. Next time don't use literally if you cannot back it up.

 

[fOx]

So no, you can't prove it, because it did not happen. Next time don't use literally if you cannot back it up.

I mean, I didn't say you did. I'm just pointing out that you're making more gravely offensive, outrageous claims then he is. Sort of like telling a person not to steal candy from a baby after punching one in the face.

Like assuming that I am
1) Privileged, straight, and white, and
2) am telling black people, women, and LGBT people that they deserve to suffer

 

[Sneed's SeednFeed]

Could you find the part of the Bible for me where Jesus says "Toss aside morality as a concept, it doesn't exist. Always be cynical!"

Pretty sure the cleansing of the temple and the subsequent abandonment of the rabbinic law were announcements that you should toss old morality aside to usher in a new law.

 

[fOx]

Could you find the part of the Bible for me where Jesus says "Toss aside morality as a concept, it doesn't exist. Always be cynical!"

Well, as a christian nihilist, it's more accurate to say that objective morality doesn't, and can't, exist. Morality only exists through the lens of egoism. We believe that the things that are beneficial to us, are moral. Those with power can enforce their moral standing on the population at large. Essentially, morality is a power game, and the winner is the one who can force their morality on others. Whether this is through money, violence, popular support, whatever. But there's not real objective justification for morality, just like there's no objective meaning or value in life or the universe. It's all artificial, made up.

Since God is the most powerful entity that could ever exist, he is the arbiter of morality.

 

[crimson5pheonix]

So no, you can't prove it, because it did not happen. Next time don't use literally if you cannot back it up.

But I did. You used a well known right-wing dog whistle to argue against political progress.
"Universal healthcare? Be realistic, we can't afford that."
"Debt forgiveness? Be realistic, nobody serious wants that."
"Gay marriage? Be realistic, there are other problems to deal with."
"Civil rights? Be realistic, it's too unpopular."

 

[Houseman]

Well, as a christian nihilist, it's more accurate to say that objective morality doesn't, and can't, exist...

Since God is the most powerful entity that could ever exist, he is the arbiter of morality.

Isn't that objective morality, though? The morality that God set?
What's the difference between God saying "I make the rules, these are the rules" and whether or not objective morality "exists"?

 

[Sneed's SeednFeed]

Isn't that objective morality, though? The morality that God set?
What's the difference between God saying "I make the rules, these are the rules" and whether or not objective morality "exists"?

Fox is referring to the inaccessibility of objective morality yet our ability to conceive it. Much in the way that Nietzsche utilised the master-slave dialectic in order to postulate a genealogy of morality, the total supremacy of morality is not something enshrined within the institutions of slave morality like religion but is something projected onto us by a supreme master, a Jesus figure who lives as the ubermensch and imposes his own morality whilst at the same time having the option to perceive in multitudes and execute estrangement from the thing-in-itself, the realm of which is is where the object of morality, the supreme being of God can exist.

Fox is imploring, I believe, to view Christ as an overman figure through which we learn of the Kantian mediation of phenomena, that things which can be experienced as direct phenomena are the only things we can confirm within the scope of objective/subjective relations as subjects, but the supremacy of the will is something phenomenal and extra-experiential thus residing as an arbiter of the moral phenomena through its projection of the shadow of a concept yet escaping all objective durativity.

 

[Schadrach]

Joe Manchin is not running for President. Nor would he, because he is a Trump supporter. Yes, Joe Manchin claims to oppose Trump, but seems to do everything he can to support him by letting him do what he wants.

Joe Manchin is taking after the most successful Senator from his state, Robert Byrd. He doesn't stand for anything, he tries to reflect his constituents at the moment. It's like having a funhouse mirror in Congress.

I can literally say I voted for him, but much like voting for Biden it's less voting for him and more voting against his opponent. Anything you don't like about Manchin, Patrick Morrisey would have been worse.

It is not someone who will continue Trump's policies. But you don't care.

Since it's your personal favorite example of Trump's evil policies to invoke, want to place a bet? I predict that next time we have a Democrat president, there will still be kids in cages even well into that President's term. At the same time, there will be much less coverage of that fact, because it's not politically useful to advertise (left wing outlets won't want to hurt a Dem POTUS and right wingers won't be that angry about it).

Every 'Republican' thing Obama did was about mitigating the damage Republicans were doing. Same for all the immigrants he deported. That was Obama reducing the bad effects in the hopes of moving left at all. Because when we try to move left in big strides, Republicans do everything they can to sink that ship.

So, when Republicans do a thing, that thing is evil. When Democrats do the same thing, that thing is mitigating the damage Republicans were doing by doing it as well?

Until Republicans are removed from power, we are restrained.

I mean, Dems act like they're restrained and in a compromise position even when they control the President and both houses of Congress. You might want to question why that is.

Sander's is a Democratic socialist, not a communist, and while yes, I think some of his policies would align with MLK, MLK also still came from a time when his belief that Homosexuality was a mental illness that needed to be treated was the status quo. I have grown up around a great deal of Southern Baptists, and their religious beliefs are anything but progressive. Keep in mind It was southern baptists of MLK's time that still believed women should wear dresses and not pants. MLK would have very likely also supported Biden's proposal to increase the subsides included in the ACA and medicaid expansion, and would not view that as upholding the "status quo" to ensure free healthcare to the poor.

Long story short, MLK would likely have been to the right of Dems on abortion and LGBTQIAA2SP+ folks, and well to the left of them on basically everything else.

 

[McElroy]

Isn't that objective morality, though? The morality that God set?
What's the difference between God saying "I make the rules, these are the rules" and whether or not objective morality "exists"?

I googled that and this came up

 

[Houseman]

I googled that and this came up

I've heard of that before, and my answer is probably off-topic in a thread about biden. Too bad we don't have a Religion and Philosophy section to discuss this stuff. But yeah, maybe that explains his view.

 

[lil devils x]

Long story short, MLK would likely have been to the right of Dems on abortion and LGBTQIAA2SP+ folks, and well to the left of them on basically everything else.

To some extent, yes, though how he viewed " women's rights" as far as his own family is concerned was another matter all together.

Though dems have been moving left in recent years, it just takes more time than we have right now. This current pandemic has been moving more of them that way faster though.

Meanwhile, we have Republicans like Lindsey Graham building a coalition to shut off unemployment benefits in the middle of a pandemic.

Lindsey Graham Vows To Cut Off Unemployment Benefits To The Jobless

Lindsey Graham (R-SC) vowed that unemployment benefits won't be extended by the Republican Senate majority no matter the status of the coronavirus pandemic.

www.politicususa.com

If he succeeds in his goals while his party still maintains control, millions of people will not survive this. I really do not think people understand exactly what is at risk here if we cannot get the idiots in charge out of power.

Oh and Trump just fired another Official for trying to put the people first again...

Trump looks to replace HHS watchdog who identified crucial hospital supply shortages

The White House late Friday moved to oust an inspector general at the Department of Health and Human Services weeks after the official presented President Donald Trump with a report showing that hospitals responding to the coronavirus pandemic are lacking in necessary supplies.

www.cnbc.com

If anyone is even remotely confused about how this has been going, let me lay it out for you:

*When the world found out that COVID-19 was coming, diligent nations stockpiled PPE and equipment to deal with it while Trump said it was a hoax.
*When First responders accross the US started to plead for PPE, Trump said it was the states responsibility and that the federal government was not a " shipping service"
*In other nations, they were providing not only first responders with PPE, but all public workers, even those cleaning the stores had PPE, but our Paramedic, Police, Doctors and Nurses on the front lines could not obtain the PPE they needed.
* Trump still refused to enact the Defense production act to make PPE for first responders and the general public and instead told them to reuse single use PPE that has already been proven repeatedly to put both the wearers and those they are treating lives at risk and proposing they use bandanna's instead of actual protection and accused First responders of stealing PPE.
* States were desperately scrambling to get PPE to the front lines, bidding for PPE against other states and the federal government.
* After Trump was being called out for on his lack of maintaining government stockpiles, instead of obtaining PPE from Defense production act and other sources, Trump's Fema director stole the PPE that states had purchased for the first responders intercepting their orders as they came in and in route to where they needed to go and putting them in the national stockpile, leaving the states without what they needed on the front lines. So yes, Trump told states to fend for themselves then stole what they did manage to obtain and withheld it from those needing it on the front lines and in care homes.
*Instead of trying to keep accurate numbers of those becoming infected and dying, they are not even recording how many first responders are becoming infected or dying of COVID-19 making it even more difficult to track where we need further resources allocated.
*Trump moves to silence and fire officials who report the truth about what is happening, more worried about making him look bad than actually supplying the front lines with what they need to survive this and help others survive. Yes, that is correct, they took away PPE from the front lines to put in the national stockpile not to be used right now instead of increase their stockpile from the defense production act to get enough for everyone, and yes, those putting their lives on the line right now to save others have been paying the price for it, as we have a barrage of stories coming in about healthcare workers, police and paramedics being killed by this virus that could not obtain simple equipment that should have been provided by the federal government in a national emergency to protect themselves. Somehow China can provide even their grocery workers and street cleaners with Hazmat suits, but we cannot even get our doctors masks under our current administration.

FEMA Reportedly Hijacked 5 Million Masks Ordered For Veterans To Send To Stockpile

“I couldn’t tell you when my next delivery was coming in," Veterans Health Administration manager complained to The Washington Post.

www.huffpost.com

FEMA Accused Of Hijacking Protective Gear For First Responders In Massachusetts Town

FEMA said moving supplies to "hot spots" determined by the Trump administration is not the same as "commandeering."

www.huffpost.com

Officials in at least 6 states are accusing the federal government of quietly diverting their orders for coronavirus medical equipment

State and local authorities in Colorado, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Kentucky, Texas, and Florida made these accusations.

www.businessinsider.com

‘Swept Up by FEMA’: Complicated Medical Supply System Sows Confusion (Published 2020)

The Trump administration’s new method for distributing medical supplies has led to charges of confiscation.

www.nytimes.com

Delaware medical supplier says FEMA seized 400,000 N95 masks; now he's out millions of dollars

A Delaware importer says the Federal Emergency Management Agency seized a shipment of N95 masks two weeks ago, accusations FEMA denies.

www.usatoday.com

 

[fOx]

I've heard of that before, and my answer is probably off-topic in a thread about biden. Too bad we don't have a Religion and Philosophy section to discuss this stuff. But yeah, maybe that explains his view.

Sneed pretty much hit the nail on the head.

By using the Euthphro Dilemma as an example, I would argue that the second example is clearly the true case. God makes demands of humanity that he is free to ignore himself. Think of it this way: which is higher, God, or the law? Seeing as God can overide the law, clearly God is higher. Furthermore, Jesus tells us that the law of God was created for the benefit of mankind. Man was not created for the law. The law has value insofar as it depicts the will of God, which can be enforced by God through his limitless power and strength.

I hold to the philosophical doctrine of egoism, and since God is the ultimate source of power and life in the universe, he sets the rules, because he can enforce them.

 

[lil devils x]

Yes. No one was arguing about trans bathrooms ten years ago. We were still arguing about the legality of gay marriage. Every major political candidate for president was scared to suggest that they support gay marriage, including Obama. Socialism was a slur being used by the right. Now it's socially acceptable. Things like universal healthcare, and free college, were not even worthy of discussion. There has been a massive, overwhelming move to the left over the last ten years, and anyone who says otherwise has a short memory. If Trump had run in 2000, I don't think most of his statements would even be seen as outlandish. The overton window has already shifted, and people don't even seem to realize it.



Gradualism doesn't work, we do not have time. I've said this so many times. We need direct action now. On a larger scale then even the civil rights movement. You can that that's impossible, but that's only true if everyone throws their hands in the air, and gives up. We can't just wait for the boomer generation to age out. We need young people to come out and represent themselves now. The planet is dying.

You DO realize though that you are ensuring that none of this will be resolved in our lifetimes by working against the things you believe to be so urgent. The US isn't going further left, instead, the supreme court has moved more right than it has been in most of our lifetimes. The Supreme court is who decides whether right or left wing policy is legal, they are the final say, so by ensuring the court is moving further right, you are setting policy for the entire nation to be right for our lifetimes.

Yes, people were talking about trans rights a decade ago, and talking about it has accomplished nothing thus far except the nation moving further right. The longer the right holds control, the further right everything moves because they are the ones who determine what laws exist. We have organizations being funded by the Federal government now who refuse to allow gay adoption, remove healthcare from gay families, and have had their protections removed under the law. Instead of moving left, over the last 4 years, more women''s health clinics have been closed than have opened due to federal funding being removed. It will take decades more once the right are out of power to be able to even get back to where we were before we can even fathom being able to move forward again. It takes time to rebuild what is being lost in this, and some may never be rebuilt again at all.

What you are proposing is what is holding up progress, not making it happen faster. You think it will make people fed up and act, instead what happens in reality is many of those that would have been able to get something done if the right were not in power are too busy just trying to survive each day and help others survive till the next day under the harsh policies being enacted, they do not have time to accomplish anything else. The left is losing ground, not gaining it. Bernie LOST delegates from 2016, not gained them this time around. if anything should tell you your plan failed, that should be it. Instead we have an increase in numbers of racism, militias and other far right groups. Your plan is having the opposite effect that you think it will.

 

[fOx]

You DO realize though that you are ensuring that none of this will be resolved in our lifetimes by working against the things you believe to be so urgent. The US isn't going further left, instead, the supreme court has moved more right than it has been in most of our lifetimes. The Supreme court is who decides whether right or left wing policy is legal, they are the final say, so by ensuring the court is moving further right, you are setting policy for the entire nation to be right for our lifetimes.

Yes, people were talking about trans rights a decade ago, and talking about it has accomplished nothing thus far except the nation moving further right. The longer the right holds control, the further right everything moves because they are the ones who determine what laws exist. Instead of moving left, over the last 4 years, more women''s health clinics have been closed than have opened due to federal funding being removed. it will take decades more once the right are our of power to be able to even get back to where we were before we can even fathom being able to move forward again. What you are proposing is what is holding up progress, not making it happen faster. You think it will make people fed up and act, instead what happens in reality is many of those that would have been able to get something done if the right were not in power are too busy just trying to survive each day and help others survive till the next day under the harsh policies being enacted, they do not have time to accomplish anything else. The left is losing ground, not gaining it. Bernie LOST delegates from 2016, not gained them this time around. if anything should tell you your plan failed, that should be it. Instead we have an increase in numbers of racism, militias and other far right groups. Your plan is having the opposite effect that you think it will.

Not at all, I think we should oust Trump from office, take over the senate and house, get a proper socialist president in power, dismantle the supreme court, eliminate the office of the presidency, and then convert the government into a communist system that will pressure other countries to adopting green policies. This is important for human rights, and for the survival of the planet. But I'm sure the right wing members on this board would say that that's too radical, or moving too fast. In the meantime, the earth dies. The slow but steady policy isn't a solution, we do not have time for it.

 

[fOx]

But I did. You used a well known right-wing dog whistle to argue against political progress.
"Universal healthcare? Be realistic, we can't afford that."
"Debt forgiveness? Be realistic, nobody serious wants that."
"Gay marriage? Be realistic, there are other problems to deal with."
"Civil rights? Be realistic, it's too unpopular."

We've seen these dogwhistles before. They're actually a call not to change the system at all.

It reminds me of a history project I did for college once. I was researching local history. The police department was corrupt, and abusing the local african americans. One day the african american community took over the police station, and demanded reform. The police chief conceded everything to the demonstrators, but once they left, he proceeded to slowly dismantle all the changes that were made over the course of several months. He gave in when confronted with force, and allowed the demonstartors to make a big show of their civil rights victory. But then he used underhanded tactics to quietly undo all that progress without anyone noticing. If you take your time, you can get people to accept any injustice. That's what people like Biden want. They'll make a show of support for socialist policies, but they will never, ever deliver.

People want us to quiet down and support right wing policies out of a supposed necessity, but then forget about what was promised down the line. The republicans did it to Ron Paul, successfully, and the democrats are doing it to bernie now.

 

[lil devils x]

Not at all, I think we should oust Trump from office, take over the senate and house, get a proper socialist president in power, dismantle the supreme court, eliminate the office of the presidency, and then convert the government into a communist system that will pressure other countries to adopting green policies. This is important for human rights, and for the survival of the planet. But I'm sure the right wing members on this board would say that that's too radical, or moving too fast. In the meantime, the earth dies. The slow but steady policy isn't a solution, we do not have time for it.

Think about this for a minute. Say you are in surgery and you are trying to perform a procedure and it isn't going as planned, say you encounter tissue with lesions and are not able to reattach where you had initially planned and have to try another route and attach elsewhere to save their life. Do you make a plan b and go with that to ensure the patient survives or do you say screw it I am not getting it done the way I wanted so I am just going to screw it all up and hope that teaches them a lesson to not eat spicy food because spicy food caused the lesions?

Sure Bernie was our plan A. It didn't go as planned and we ran into obstacles. We do not give up and let it all go to hell because we didn't get our way, instead we go with Bernie's plan B, Biden IS Bernie's plan B here for him to still be able to get things done, just through a different route to get there. It doesn't even mean it will be slow and steady BTW. Bernie and Warren are still on the playing field, they haven;t gone home, they are just kept in their original positions in congress. They are STILL working from those positions to try and get the needed legislation on to Biden's desk to sign, but if Trump is sitting at that desk instead of Biden, it isn't going to be signed. Biden will sign whatever democrats can manage to get passed. Trump will not. If Bernie managed to get medicare for all passed, Biden isn't going to veto it, he will STILL sign it. TBH, I think we actually need warren and Sanders MORE in congress than we need them in the white house because we need them to write the bills and to push to get the legislation through so that we even have a shot at making changes in the first place. The president doesn't write the bills, we just need him to hold the pen that signs them.

You are right, we don't have time to lose here, so lets stop wasting time and help Bernie get his plan B done here. That does not mean " quiet down" it means get to work to make it happen faster instead of only focusing on what we couldn't get done.

 

[Seanchaidh]

You are right, we don't have time to lose here, so lets stop wasting time and help Bernie get his plan B done here. That does not mean " quiet down" it means get to work to make it happen faster instead of only focusing on what we couldn't get done.

The energy and self-sabotaging silliness with which the Democratic establishment opposed Bernie's nomination suggests that "Bernie's plan B" is a pipe dream.