Biden for President?

[Sideroxylon]

I have to tell you, it really doesn't make that much difference to me personally. I'm a 63-year old straight white male who lives in Mississippi, who managed somehow to avoid ever having any kids (that I was ever told of). Nothing Trump or the people he can put on the Court can do will ever really have much effect on me, and I leave no hostages to fortune. So...if the purists aren't happy about it and want to vote for Trump out of spite, or just pout at home and withhold the votes Biden needs to win...no skin off my nose, knock yourselves out.

That is pragmatism.

It certainly is. Unabashedly devoid of notions of good or empathy.

 

[BobTheCoward]

The pragmatists here must be happy the DP settled on the most electable choice.

It is so weird that progressives going around talking about how woke they are can't stand that the people they are supposedly woke about don't vote for them.

 

[thaiboxerken]

That request doesn't make any sense. How can you ask someone to prove their value system?

Provide evidence that the economic concerns are as important as, or greater than public health.

 

[Sideroxylon]

It is so weird that progressives going around talking about how woke they are can't stand that the people they are supposedly woke about don't vote for them.

People voting against their class interests is an interesting thing isn’t it, Bob.

 

[turingtest]

It certainly is. Unabashedly devoid of notions of good or empathy.

Devoid? Not at all, I've said many times that my preference would have been for Sanders and his ideals, and certainly not just for my own benefit. But there comes a time when you just gotta recognize that "holier than thou" isn't worth pushing back against anymore, no matter who it's coming from.

 

[Segnosaur]

I have to tell you, it really doesn't make that much difference to me personally. I'm a 63-year old straight white male who lives in Mississippi, who managed somehow to avoid ever having any kids (that I was ever told of). Nothing Trump or the people he can put on the Court can do will ever really have much effect on me...



That is pragmatism.

First of all even if his effect on you is small, a little empathy for other people (such as women who will lose reproductive rights) is generally a good thing.

People who lack all concern for others are generally scorned.

Secondly I think you are under estimating the potential damage Trump can do to someone in your personal situation...

- his questionable economic policies (trade wars, his tax plans) will take money out of your pocket (especially if his plans cause economic instability)

- his mishandling of covid-19 increases the risk of you dying

- you didn't say whether you were personally wealthy and could afford your own insurance, but if not and you need Medicare or social insurance you might see benefits reduced due to trump

Then there is the effect of trump stacking the supreme Court...

- allowing abuses to the voting process means people (including you) won't have your voting preferences respected. So if Republicans doe something you REALLY dislike you won't be able to stop them

You are 63.. at your age you could easily live another 10-20 years... More than enough time for Trump's follies to harm you.

Sent from my LM-X320 using Tapatalk

 

[Sideroxylon]

Devoid? Not at all, I've said many times that my preference would have been for Sanders and his ideals, and certainly not just for my own benefit. But there comes a time when you just gotta recognize that "holier than thou" isn't worth pushing back against anymore, no matter who it's coming from.

Sorry, haven’t been tracking your posts so was responding to the one you made just now.

 

[turingtest]

First of all even if his effect on you is small, a little empathy for other people (such as women who will lose reproductive rights) is generally a good thing.
People who lack all concern for others are generally scorned.

Secondly I think you are under estimating the potential damage Trump can do to someone in your personal situation...

- his questionable economic policies (trade wars, his tax plans) will take money out of your pocket (especially if his plans cause economic instability)

- his mishandling of covid-19 increases the risk of you dying

- you didn't say whether you were personally wealthy and could afford your own insurance, but if not and you need Medicare or social insurance you might see benefits reduced due to trump

Then there is the effect of trump stacking the supreme Court...

- allowing abuses to the voting process means people (including you) won't have your voting preferences respected. So if Republicans doe something you REALLY dislike you won't be able to stop them

You are 63.. at your age you could easily live another 10-20 years... More than enough time for Trump's follies to harm you.

Sent from my LM-X320 using Tapatalk

Jesus ******* christ. I love the way you edited out the actual point I was trying to make with that post. I don't want to see Donald Trump re-elected; to me, all else falls to irrelevancy; and the bottom line is that the purists who think their notions of good or empathy entitle them to bern the house down, because they didn't get all the toys at once and right now, are the ones who are going to put him in a position where he can continue to make all their notions completely moot for the foreseeable future, for them and their children. It's not that I have no empathy; but I certainly have no sympathy- a totally different thing- for people who think "my way or the highway." They can sneer all they want at pragmatism, and wish for something purer- but, as the old saying goes, wish in one hand, **** in the other, see which one fills up first.

So, please, don't pontificate to me about how, gosh, you should have a little empathy for the folks who will suffer by Trump's re-election. I know they will suffer; but there's a point where empathy is just a useless expression when action is what's needed.

ETA- ok. Reading back over my "this is pragmatism" post, I can see where folks misunderstood that, not clearly written on my part. Let me try to clarify. Wareyin, in another post in this thread, referred to the purists' "well thought out plan of biting off your nose then shooting yourself in the foot." That's really well put; and when I said "that is pragmatism," it was in reference to just not seeing any useful point anymore in arguing with, or having empathy for, folks who are doing that. It was not referring to not needing to care because it can't really affect me; it was an expression of exasperation at the folks who make the caring useless because they can't see any POV but their own idealism.

 

[BobTheCoward]

People voting against their class interests is an interesting thing isn’t it, Bob.

I agree. But I'm not claiming to be an ally. The problem. Is progressives wishing to be the ally but also saying the allied group is voting against their interest. It is trumpian in it's logic.

 

[xjx388]

Provide evidence that the economic concerns are as important as, or greater than public health.

Well, for starters, this isn’t something amenable to evidence. You haven’t provided evidence for your position. These are philosophical stances we are taking.

Keeping the economy functional to some extent is essential to keeping our public health institutions running. Hell, it essential to keeping our society running. But you staked out a position where you seem to want the economy to fail in order to remake society. Taking that position to an extreme, I can’t see any good coming from such a scenario. Sure, we might minimize morbidity and mortality to the greatest extent possible, but what would be left? “At least I’m alive and well” seems like little consolation when the task ahead will be, effectively, to rebuild society. And I question the idea that allowing the economy to fail would have the end result of maintaining health and well-being. How would that be accomplished when the resultant panic, rioting and general chaos would likely result in even greater misery?

I trust that you actually do recognize the value of keeping the economy going. Perhaps you were indulging in fantastical idealism. I don’t know...maybe you can clarify exactly what you meant?

 

[thaiboxerken]

I trust that you actually do recognize the value of keeping the economy going. Perhaps you were indulging in fantastical idealism. I don’t know...maybe you can clarify exactly what you meant?

I mean we should reject Reaganism and re-establish the New Deal.

 

[Delvo]

The pragmatists here must be happy the DP settled on the most electable choice.

...if the purists aren't happy about it ...no skin off my nose, knock yourselves out.

That is pragmatism.

They can sneer all they want at pragmatism, and wish for something purer...

The debate among Biden & Bernie supporters has never been about pragmatism versus purity or idealism or such. Both sides are being pragmatic. They're just being pragmatic on different scales. If all one looks at is one Presidential term at a time, there's no doubt that Trump has to go. But there will presumably be more Presidential terms, and more legislative terms, after that.

We've seen a long parade of bidens before (also known as clintons and kerrys and pelosis and schumers and crowleys and braziles and manchins and so on), not just running for President and losing but also running for other offices and sometimes winning, so then what they do once they're actually in office is on display. And even for those who win, what they do next is still just more losing in a different way, turning all American politics with bidens running one party into just a long ongoing continuous surrender to the other party. You might say a Trump win is letting 2 more Supreme Court members get appointed by the Republicans; well, not only those next 2 but also a lot more, during one Presidential term after another indefinitely, will result from reinforcing the bidens' death-grip on their own party. "Pragmatism", at least beyond a short four-year horizon, demands diminishing their power & influence within the party, not promoting it.

 

[Sideroxylon]

I agree. But I'm not claiming to be an ally. The problem. Is progressives wishing to be the ally but also saying the allied group is voting against their interest. It is trumpian in it's logic.

That’s a claim, Bob. A vague one but care to offer an argument for it?

 

[BobTheCoward]

That’s a claim, Bob. A vague one but care to offer an argument for it?

Not really. It is more like, "I wouldn't do that if I were you" warning rather than a claim. And as I don't actually care if you succeed at convincing black voters, it is going to be more fun for me watching progressives ignore my advice and fail. So no, I don't actually care to offer an argument for it.

But what fuels my suspicion is I think best captured by the root. If you are not familiar with them, one of their writers had a pretty popular "woke" attack against mayor Pete. It is a liberal/progressivs black online magazine.

Here is their piece about Sanders dropping out
https://www.theroot.com/breaking-the-bernie-sanders-bubble-1842751795


And this is the general tone of it.

The anger manifested itself inside Bernie’s camp with the usual tropes and conspiracy theories… “The Democratic establishment did this…they did that…” The Too Dumb theories… “People are too dumb to know that Bernie’s policies are this or that…” Or, the not so subtle anti-black racism, “black people in the South are just tools and will vote for whoever their ministers, politicians, barber, etc. tell them.”

And no, I don't have evidence that people do not want to support groups that say they vote against their own interests. I recommend you reject my claim.

 

[wareyin]

The debate among Biden & Bernie supporters has never been about pragmatism versus purity or idealism or such. Both sides are being pragmatic. They're just being pragmatic on different scales. If all one looks at is one Presidential term at a time, there's no doubt that Trump has to go. But there will presumably be more Presidential terms, and more legislative terms, after that.

We've seen a long parade of bidens before (also known as clintons and kerrys and pelosis and schumers and crowleys and braziles and manchins and so on), not just running for President and losing but also running for other offices and sometimes winning, so then what they do once they're actually in office is on display. And even for those who win, what they do next is still just more losing in a different way, turning all American politics with bidens running one party into just a long ongoing continuous surrender to the other party. You might say a Trump win is letting 2 more Supreme Court members get appointed by the Republicans; well, not only those next 2 but also a lot more, during one Presidential term after another indefinitely, will result from reinforcing the bidens' death-grip on their own party. "Pragmatism", at least beyond a short four-year horizon, demands diminishing their power & influence within the party, not promoting it.

Your contention is that Democratic politicians make no moves to the left once in power? If so, that is utter nonsense. If your complaint is that they didn't wave a magic wand and enact the purest bestest left-wing UHC and free college and whatever else your goals are despite our system of government forcing them to work with the other party, it's also utter nonsense just of a different flavor.

 

[rockysmith76]

Your contention is that Democratic politicians make no moves to the left once in power? If so, that is utter nonsense. If your complaint is that they didn't wave a magic wand and enact the purest bestest left-wing UHC and free college and whatever else your goals are despite our system of government forcing them to work with the other party, it's also utter nonsense just of a different flavor.

They shouldn't... the left is the fringe of society and doesn't deserve that kind of consideration.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

Your contention is that Democratic politicians make no moves to the left once in power? If so, that is utter nonsense. If your complaint is that they didn't wave a magic wand and enact the purest bestest left-wing UHC and free college and whatever else your goals are despite our system of government forcing them to work with the other party, it's also utter nonsense just of a different flavor.

Seems more like a comment on the failures of third way politics that have been so popular among Democrats for the last few decades.

For example, when Biden waffles on whether he would veto M4A, he cites costs and middle class taxes. He is a fiscal conservative, he is skeptical of government spending. When it comes to healthcare policy, climate change policy, or any other large issue, I fully expect Biden's conservatism to take charge.

Do you deny that there is a growing conflict between fiscal conservatives in the party and progressives? The conservative wing won the primary, there is no reason to believe they'd abandon their third way policies if in power.

 

[rockysmith76]

Seems more like a comment on the failures of third way politics that have been so popular among Democrats for the last few decades.

For example, when Biden waffles on whether he would veto M4A, he cites costs and middle class taxes. He is a fiscal conservative, he is skeptical of government spending. When it comes to healthcare policy, climate change policy, or any other large issue, I fully expect Biden's conservatism to take charge.

Do you deny that there is a growing conflict between fiscal conservatives in the party and progressives? The conservative wing won the primary, there is no reason to believe they'd abandon their third way policies if in power.

Fiscal Conservatism makes sense. The left classically wants raise taxes to throw at whatever problem arises at the time with little if any plan.

Just like certain of the left revel in screaming outrage at something bugging them but seem to have no capacity for suggesting a solution. The left end of the Dems had a respectable guy in Bernie but he opted out when he should have for the right reasons. It's time for the Outraged left to get their condescending pat on the head, take their cookie and go home.

 

[Suddenly]

Provide evidence that the economic concerns are as important as, or greater than public health.

Also while at it they can maybe explain how trying to end virus countermeasures and run an economy where people are constantly going to be unable to work because of health issues won't be an abject disaster and likely worse than present conditions.

Not just people sick from the virus, but of other things as there wouldn't be a healthcare system because hospitals are overrun and more doctors are sick/dead from the virus. Not to mention the anxiety and fear people will have from being economically forced to put themselves in danger and the fallout from that.

 

[The Don]

Fiscal Conservatism makes sense.

If it does, I wonder why Republican Presidents increase the deficit.

The left classically wants raise taxes to throw at whatever problem arises at the time with little if any plan.

The right on the other hand cut taxes for the wealthy, increase corporate pork and military spending and explode the deficit without any plan.