2020 Election Commentary

[moonsweeper]

They have to make a full length film of this:

Make it so.

Worst case scenario is CW2...other than that we can sit here and ask them how it feels to bear responsibility for what Biden/Harris does if they take office.

I mean our friends here bitch about 'climate change', 'police brutality', and 'wars in other countries' after they refused to vote for Trump.

C'mon man...you know the incoming admin they chose is going to hold the world's largest polluter and human rights violator accountable for something. 

Surely our fellow posters' moral principles aren't that malleable.

Personally, I think its gonna be fun... 

[HappyDaze]

I mean our fiends here bitch about 'climate change', 'police brutality', and 'wars in other countries' after they refused to vote for Trump.

So, which fiends here are you referring to that bitch about those things and also refused to vote for Trump?

BTW, nice job on blatantly demonizing the other with that word choice, was it intentional or a slip?

[VisionStorm]

And he's right, he would have beat Hillary in the primaries I think.

Same way he beat her in 2008? And beat Bernie too? Also, I'm sure that $Hillary and the DNC wouldn't have cheated against him, the same way they did Bernie, to ensure she got the nomination, because it was "Her Time!". #ImWithHer

No because he hadn't been a Vice President of the United States in 2008. Obviously. Biden had even more establishment support than Hillary did in 2016. And he had a far better background to run against Bernie than she did - he has a huge Union-backing resume she lacked. Biden would have cleaned up in the primaries that year. He just couldn't run.

IDK, I doubt that he would've generated as much enthusiasm as Bernie. Plus there's also the fact that the Clintons basically own the Democratic party. But I'll grant you that he would have stood a better chance coming out of being VP, particularly given how many loved Obama, despite the guy failing to fulfill a single campaign promise and being a war criminal second only to W Bush.

[Mistwell]

I mean our fiends here bitch about 'climate change', 'police brutality', and 'wars in other countries' after they refused to vote for Trump.

I don't bitch about any of those things. I bitch about our immigration policy, trade wars, lack of globalism, health care, failure to repair our infrastructure, and the debt. Biden won't do anything good with the debt but I bet he does better with the other issues.

[Mistwell]

And he's right, he would have beat Hillary in the primaries I think.

Same way he beat her in 2008? And beat Bernie too? Also, I'm sure that $Hillary and the DNC wouldn't have cheated against him, the same way they did Bernie, to ensure she got the nomination, because it was "Her Time!". #ImWithHer

No because he hadn't been a Vice President of the United States in 2008. Obviously. Biden had even more establishment support than Hillary did in 2016. And he had a far better background to run against Bernie than she did - he has a huge Union-backing resume she lacked. Biden would have cleaned up in the primaries that year. He just couldn't run.

IDK, I doubt that he would've generated as much enthusiasm as Bernie.

He just fended off both Bernie and Warren, and his name wasn't as prominent as it would have been right after being VP. We don't have to theorize, we know he was able to put the progressives like Bernie away.

Plus there's also the fact that the Clintons basically own the Democratic party.

After Obama, Clinton bitched she basically had to put back together the party coalitions because Obama had altered them so much. Biden was walking into the Obama coalitions gift in hand without the need to restructure them so much. She didn't own them, she made them around herself while running.

[moonsweeper]

I mean our fiends here bitch about 'climate change', 'police brutality', and 'wars in other countries' after they refused to vote for Trump.

So, which fiends here are you referring to that bitch about those things and also refused to vote for Trump?

BTW, nice job on blatantly demonizing the other with that word choice, was it intentional or a slip?

It has been corrected, my friend. 

...that would have been a good one if it was intentional, unfortunately I can't claim that.

[moonsweeper]

I mean our fiends here bitch about 'climate change', 'police brutality', and 'wars in other countries' after they refused to vote for Trump.

I don't bitch about any of those things. I bitch about our immigration policy, trade wars, lack of globalism, health care, failure to repair our infrastructure, and the debt. Biden won't do anything good with the debt but I bet he does better with the other issues.

I wasn't referring to you.  The ones I was referencing actually try and claim a moral high ground.  You are just a neocon who feels that making money off of (1)manufactured international conflict, (2)artificially suppressing Americans' wages, and (3)other countries use of slave/forced labor is ok.

I respect you for at least admitting this and not trying to claim the moral high ground.

[Pat]

Greetings!

Excellent commentary, Pat. I agree that people often seem to like arguing against some image in their heads rather than actually discussing what someone actually said--or means--and in this case, you in particular.

I interpreted your earlier commentary as what is the word--a dichotomy, or paradox? The one where two statements are seemingly contradictory, while being true at the same time?--I know on some level that an individual vote doesn't matter--but collectively, voting matters, is valuable, and in some circumstances can be decisive. *Shrugs* I think I understood you correctly.

Thanks. You, and Rawma as well, are correct that I was using a rhetorical technique to create some cognitive dissonance. That's because the idea that voting matters, full stop, has been drilled into peoples' heads so much that challenges to it are often unthinkingly dismissed, almost as if they were a form of heresy. By highlighting the statistical impossibility of a single vote swinging an election, I was trying to break through that ingrained, unexamined belief.

On another note, somewhat related--I think some people often like to get *pedantic*. While it can be important to read what someone specifically says--in my view, a deeper and more fulfilling exercise is understanding what a person *means*--which is not always a precise map to what they happened to have said. If that makes any sense.

None the less, though, your assessment about how many people engage in interweb arguments is accurate. I see that often, and even sometimes correcting friends of mine that *didn't* read something fully, but instead skimmed, and then embraced a conclusion. Their conclusions often miss nuance and a greater comprehension of what was said in whatever article.

I think it is always important to actually listen to what the other person is saying. Too often, people arguing on the interwebs don't do that, unfortunately.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

It makes a lot of sense.

A strawman argument is where you twist someone's argument and make it as weak as possible, and then attack the weakened caricature. It typically involves uncharitably interpreting statements in the worst way possible, taking things out of context, and reading things into what they said.

I forget who it was, but a couple months ago, someone on the this board introduced me to a term for the opposite. Instead of starting with the assumption that the other person is wrong, and using any means necessary to knock down their argument, the steelman approach is to to interpret their words as charitably as possible. This involves looking beyond the words they're using to understand the point they're making, and challenging the strongest version. Not only does this reduce petty bickering by showing respect for the person presenting the argument, but pitting your ideas against the strongest opposition is the best way to see if your own arguments really hold up.

I've been using variations on the technique for years, but it's useful to have a term for the concept.

[VisionStorm]

IDK, I doubt that he would've generated as much enthusiasm as Bernie.

He just fended off both Bernie and Warren, and his name wasn't as prominent as it would have been right after being VP. We don't have to theorize, we know he was able to put the progressives like Bernie away.

Except that we do, because Bernie didn't have the same support in 2020 as he did back in 2016, after $Hillary cheated him and all that he did in response once evidence of that came out was to buy himself a new house and fancy new car, still tell people to vote for her and become an establishment stooge--showing himself to be a spineless, sold-out coward. Plus, by 2020, after years of Antifa beating people on the streets, BLM thugs promoting "Marxism", and politically correct "progressives" (most of whom openly support socialism) canceling people left and right, most people no longer thought that a US Presidential candidate calling himself a "Socialist" was cute.

Plus there's also the fact that the Clintons basically own the Democratic party.

After Obama, Clinton bitched she basically had to put back together the party coalitions because Obama had altered them so much. Biden was walking into the Obama coalitions gift in hand without the need to restructure them so much. She didn't own them, she made them around herself while running.

The Democratic Party's ex-interim chief has accused Hillary Clinton of seizing control of the party in exchange for funding during the 2016 campaign.

[jeff37923]

Nah, you got the roles reversed, Shasarak is arguing in good faith while you are trolling him.

You are still the monkey, HappyDaze.

The scary thing here is that these guys on the forums are apparently the health professionals that everyone is supposed to trust with regard to things like the Chinese Wuhan virus and when they lie about something as easy to check as this, well it just destroys any of their credibility.

I mean now who is going to wear a mask if Happydaze says they should?  And why would they.

What precisely do you believe I have lied about, you dishonest little bitch?

See, we can all call each other dishonest and completely dismiss anything the other says. It's the way things work here.

So if it is the way things work here, you should be used to it.

Why does it get you butthurt? Is it because you are a monkey who dances to anyone's tune? Is your kink not OK?

[HappyDaze]

Nah, you got the roles reversed, Shasarak is arguing in good faith while you are trolling him.

You are still the monkey, HappyDaze.

The scary thing here is that these guys on the forums are apparently the health professionals that everyone is supposed to trust with regard to things like the Chinese Wuhan virus and when they lie about something as easy to check as this, well it just destroys any of their credibility.

I mean now who is going to wear a mask if Happydaze says they should?  And why would they.

What precisely do you believe I have lied about, you dishonest little bitch?

See, we can all call each other dishonest and completely dismiss anything the other says. It's the way things work here.

So if it is the way things work here, you should be used to it.

Why does it get you butthurt? Is it because you are a monkey who dances to anyone's tune? Is your kink not OK?

Jeffy, you're reading hurt in my posts that doesn't exist. I don't get the least bit upset from the bullshit here because I recognize that both the posts and the posters on this part of the forum are largely just meaningless. But you know that, jeffy, so you just keep playing your character your way, and I'll do the same.

[jeff37923]

Nah, you got the roles reversed, Shasarak is arguing in good faith while you are trolling him.

You are still the monkey, HappyDaze.

The scary thing here is that these guys on the forums are apparently the health professionals that everyone is supposed to trust with regard to things like the Chinese Wuhan virus and when they lie about something as easy to check as this, well it just destroys any of their credibility.

I mean now who is going to wear a mask if Happydaze says they should?  And why would they.

What precisely do you believe I have lied about, you dishonest little bitch?

See, we can all call each other dishonest and completely dismiss anything the other says. It's the way things work here.

So if it is the way things work here, you should be used to it.

Why does it get you butthurt? Is it because you are a monkey who dances to anyone's tune? Is your kink not OK?

Jeffy, you're reading hurt in my posts that doesn't exist. I don't get the least bit upset from the bullshit here because I recognize that both the posts and the posters on this part of the forum are largely just meaningless. But you know that, jeffy, so you just keep playing your character your way, and I'll do the same.

Of course you aren't butthurt......   

[HappyDaze]

Nah, you got the roles reversed, Shasarak is arguing in good faith while you are trolling him.

You are still the monkey, HappyDaze.

The scary thing here is that these guys on the forums are apparently the health professionals that everyone is supposed to trust with regard to things like the Chinese Wuhan virus and when they lie about something as easy to check as this, well it just destroys any of their credibility.

I mean now who is going to wear a mask if Happydaze says they should?  And why would they.

What precisely do you believe I have lied about, you dishonest little bitch?

See, we can all call each other dishonest and completely dismiss anything the other says. It's the way things work here.

So if it is the way things work here, you should be used to it.

Why does it get you butthurt? Is it because you are a monkey who dances to anyone's tune? Is your kink not OK?

Jeffy, you're reading hurt in my posts that doesn't exist. I don't get the least bit upset from the bullshit here because I recognize that both the posts and the posters on this part of the forum are largely just meaningless. But you know that, jeffy, so you just keep playing your character your way, and I'll do the same.

Of course you aren't butthurt......   

Imagine what you want, jeffy; I know you need feel like your posts matter to others to help you masturbate.

[jeff37923]

Nah, you got the roles reversed, Shasarak is arguing in good faith while you are trolling him.

You are still the monkey, HappyDaze.

The scary thing here is that these guys on the forums are apparently the health professionals that everyone is supposed to trust with regard to things like the Chinese Wuhan virus and when they lie about something as easy to check as this, well it just destroys any of their credibility.

I mean now who is going to wear a mask if Happydaze says they should?  And why would they.

What precisely do you believe I have lied about, you dishonest little bitch?

See, we can all call each other dishonest and completely dismiss anything the other says. It's the way things work here.

So if it is the way things work here, you should be used to it.

Why does it get you butthurt? Is it because you are a monkey who dances to anyone's tune? Is your kink not OK?

Jeffy, you're reading hurt in my posts that doesn't exist. I don't get the least bit upset from the bullshit here because I recognize that both the posts and the posters on this part of the forum are largely just meaningless. But you know that, jeffy, so you just keep playing your character your way, and I'll do the same.

Of course you aren't butthurt......   

Imagine what you want, jeffy; I know you need feel like your posts matter to others to help you masturbate.

Well, that IS why we do this, isn't it?

We know that we will not convince someone of the error in their ways via internet argument, so we are performing for that unseen audience out there reading these posts. If you feel that is masturbation, then your own entrenched political trolling stance is worth nothing more to you than spunk dribbled from a flaccid member into a damp washcloth.

Just keep on dancin', you monkey!   

[Mistwell]

I mean our fiends here bitch about 'climate change', 'police brutality', and 'wars in other countries' after they refused to vote for Trump.

I don't bitch about any of those things. I bitch about our immigration policy, trade wars, lack of globalism, health care, failure to repair our infrastructure, and the debt. Biden won't do anything good with the debt but I bet he does better with the other issues.

I wasn't referring to you.  The ones I was referencing actually try and claim a moral high ground.  You are just a neocon who feels that making money off of (1)manufactured international conflict, (2)artificially suppressing Americans' wages, and (3)other countries use of slave/forced labor is ok.

I respect you for at least admitting this and not trying to claim the moral high ground.

The impact our imports had on China is a thriving middle class in China, much higher wages in China, and the ability of workers to quit and move between jobs and even strike if their factories don't pay better wages (which usually happens during Chinese New Year). All of which I watched happen over the past decade. A rising tide raises all boats, and that is what globalism does. It had the same impact in Viet Nam, who is now only about 5 years behind China for that effect. It's spreading now to Cambodia and Bangladesh and Nigeria.

Eventually, if we stopped fucking with it and let the market do it's thing, all "third world" nations would rise into "second world" nations and then "first world" nations. And as that happens you see freedoms dramatically increase. People spend their money on many of our cultural exports, like movies and iPhones and branded products. And they demand more freedoms when that happens. Because they see our culture, and our freedoms, and they want that for themselves now that they have the money to spend on it.

Trump fucked all this up with his nationalism and his trade wars. Freedom took a step back in some of these nations in the wake of it. Combined with our boneheaded immigration policies where somehow we started to say no to trained doctors and engineers from other nations wanting to emigrate here despite the high value of that immigration to our longterm economy, and it was just a terrible combination of anti-globalism policies.

And I disagree it was suppressing wages. You don't see manufacturing thriving here after we raised those custom taxes, all you saw was a shift from China to other nations for imports for some companies, at a slightly higher cost. As a manufacturer I can tell you the impact it had on us - the increased customs costs suppressed the wages of our other manufacturing employees who manufacture the more complicated items which we make here in the U.S.. So it had the exact opposite effect of what you thought it did for us. It's not like companies were going to suddenly start weaving and dying fabric here in the U.S. after 25 years of the U.S. not doing that. We don't have that equipment, space, warehousing, resellers, distributors, raw materials, or expertise for that anymore and it was still way cheaper to do overseas even with the higher tax than to try and restart that entire industry from scratch here. All it did was add a big tax on some businesses. With the largest impact on small businesses. Which is a boneheaded move. The whole scheme was unworkable from a logistics standpoint, crafted purely as a sales pitch to people who don't know the details of how it worked. It sounded good, like it was going to bring manufacturing jobs back to the U.S., but it was not built to do that at all in a realistic sense. Why you'd trust the Government to manage something like that I will never know. Since when has the Government been good at putting together complex systems like that?

But I get the nationalism perspective. It's not that I think it's evil, I just don't think it was the wisest move for the long term health of our nation. I think it comes down to Trump was engaging in style over substance when it came to the trade wars stuff.