The Defending Joe Biden Mega-Thread

tippy2k2

Beloved Tyrant
Legacy
Mar 15, 2008
14,339
1,536
118
"Terrible stuff happening in the future = much worse stuff happening much sooner, so we might as well act in a way that doesn't distinguish between them". That is, for practical purposes, accelerationism.



I'm not really interested in convincing people how to vote. I'm making the point that "sooner vs later" is a pretty damn important thing, and has the capacity to be the difference between life and death for a hell of a lot of people.
Then I guess we just have different definitions because my interpretation/understanding was a leftist who votes for Trump in order to let Trump do Trump and get everyone riled up enough to revolt.

I still disagree with your definition for me though because I'm voting third party to vote for someone who believes in what I believe in.
 
  • Like
Reactions: crimson5pheonix

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Jun 6, 2008
36,166
3,377
118
On the contrary: literally the only way we can possibly have a "fixing the problem" option is by increasing the timeframe. Acting in a way that doesn't distinguish between a longer tineframe and a shorter one is the same as writing off any possibility of fixing it.
The catch, of course, is that the yellow line ideal on that chart is actually what Biden promised to do. In reality of course, Biden has kept drilling just as high as Trump did and opened up tons of new land to drilling. So I'm not even that convinced of the chart's supposition. In either case, this chart demonstrates exactly the point that the person quoting the chart is making. Pick someone besides these two, they're useless.
 

Satinavian

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 30, 2016
1,725
679
118
This has been the voting strategy for three, four decades and look at how well it's worked out. We're not going to "incremental change" our way out of this mess. So again, I'm going to vote for someone whose values are aligned with mine, not for "better things aren't possible so vote for the slightly less evil guy".
It hasn't worked because people don't do it. The races are too close. So only centrist candidates feel safe.


I am obviously not voting for Biden as I am not an American.
But obviously i would vote for the better of two options every single time i get the choice. And i surely would make my other preferences known in those strange primaries you tend to hold.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,155
5,865
118
Country
United Kingdom
The catch, of course, is that the yellow line ideal on that chart is actually what Biden promised to do. In reality of course, Biden has kept drilling just as high as Trump did and opened up tons of new land to drilling. So I'm not even that convinced of the chart's supposition. In either case, this chart demonstrates exactly the point that the person quoting the chart is making. Pick someone besides these two, they're useless.
I'm not talking about voting tactics (at least, not here and now). If you want to make an argument that its better to vote for a third party for whatever reason, sure, be my guest. Nor am I saying the Dems' actions or promises are sufficient, which they're obviously not.

I'm making the point that a longer timeframe makes an enormous difference-- potentially life or death for hundreds of thousands of people. So in the pursuit of a 'Dems = Republicans' narrative, don't pretend a longer timeframe is practically or morally identical to a shorter one. It's categorically not, and climate scientists are routinely begging us to extend the timeframe we have to respond.
 

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Jun 6, 2008
36,166
3,377
118
I'm not talking about voting tactics (at least, not here and now). If you want to make an argument that its better to vote for a third party for whatever reason, sure, be my guest. Nor am I saying the Dems' actions or promises are sufficient, which they're obviously not.

I'm making the point that a longer timeframe makes an enormous difference-- potentially life or death for hundreds of thousands of people. So in the pursuit of a 'Dems = Republicans' narrative, don't pretend a longer timeframe is practically or morally identical to a shorter one. It's categorically not, and climate scientists are routinely begging us to extend the timeframe we have to respond.
I imagine they're actually asking to fix the problem, not just live out our own lives in relative comfort at the expense of future generations. Or, "there is less difference between Trump and Biden than there is between Biden and the end of the the Arctic and Antarctica"
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,155
5,865
118
Country
United Kingdom
I imagine they're actually asking to fix the problem, not just live out our own lives in relative comfort at the expense of future generations. Or, "there is less difference between Trump and Biden than there is between Biden and the end of the the Arctic and Antarctica"
Perhaps the Tweeter. But what I took from this post was that the difference in timeframe is unimportant. And I think it bears pointing out that difference in timeframe could decide an enormous number of lives.

If someone wants to continue to argue we should treat them the same, fine-- but be honest about it. Don't downplay the difference between an extended timeframe and a shorter one. Face up to the difference and make an argument (tactical, moral, whatever) for why its better to increase the risk of the shorter timeframe and worse outcome-- don't just pretend it's unimportant.
 

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Jun 6, 2008
36,166
3,377
118
Face up to the difference and make an argument (tactical, moral, whatever) for why its better to increase the risk of the shorter timeframe and worse outcome-- don't just pretend it's unimportant.
No, that's bullshit centrist thinking that eliminates the idea that you can vote for better. Take your bullshit nonsense elsewhere centrist. Learn to read other people's posts and listen to their ideas instead of shaming them.
 

tippy2k2

Beloved Tyrant
Legacy
Mar 15, 2008
14,339
1,536
118
Perhaps the Tweeter. But what I took from this post was that the difference in timeframe is unimportant. And I think it bears pointing out that difference in timeframe could decide an enormous number of lives.

If someone wants to continue to argue we should treat them the same, fine-- but be honest about it. Don't downplay the difference between an extended timeframe and a shorter one. Face up to the difference and make an argument (tactical, moral, whatever) for why its better to increase the risk of the shorter timeframe and worse outcome-- don't just pretend it's unimportant.
I do not think both sides are literally the same and have no problem saying Democrats are better than Republicans.

That being said, both of them are way closer to each other than either of them are to me. If Democrats don't want to catch hands when I'm throwing them at righties, they should stop standing so far to the right.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,155
5,865
118
Country
United Kingdom
No, that's bullshit centrist thinking that eliminates the idea that you can vote for better. Take your bullshit nonsense elsewhere centrist. Learn to read other people's posts and listen to their ideas instead of shaming them.
A funny thing to say, when you've just resorted to shaming insults yourself rather than engagement.

The left should be about protecting the poorest in society; those who will be most drastically impacted by a timeframe difference of even a few decades. Displacement, land underwater, wildfires, death. There's nothing 'left' about pretending that difference is immaterial.
 

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Jun 6, 2008
36,166
3,377
118
A funny thing to say, when you've just resorted to shaming insults yourself rather than engagement.
You started it by creating positions for other people.

The left should be about protecting the poorest in society; those who will be most drastically impacted by a timeframe difference of even a few decades. Displacement, land underwater, wildfires, death. There's nothing 'left' about pretending that difference is immaterial.
You'd have to be on the left first to understand. Not some sheepdog centrist.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,155
5,865
118
Country
United Kingdom
I do not think both sides are literally the same and have no problem saying Democrats are better than Republicans.

That being said, both of them are way closer to each other than either of them are to me. If Democrats don't want to catch hands when I'm throwing them at righties, they should stop standing so far to the right.
Fair enough. There's a valid argument to be made that the threat of withheld support from the left could convince Democrats to adopt better policies. So long as we're honest about risking that significantly worse scenario for a chance to convince them.
 

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Jun 6, 2008
36,166
3,377
118
Any brand of leftism that treats the poorest in society as expendable pawns isn't leftism.
Here, I'll admit to gambling with those lives if you admit that choosing Biden (or your local Biden equivalent, Starmer) is actively choosing a candidate who is hastening the destruction of the world. You can say it's to a slower extent than one other option of your choice, but you have to say you're actively picking a killer.
 

Silvanus

Elite Member
Legacy
Jan 15, 2013
11,155
5,865
118
Country
United Kingdom
Here, I'll admit to gambling with those lives if you admit that choosing Biden (or your local Biden equivalent, Starmer) is actively choosing a candidate who is hastening the destruction of the world. You can say it's to a slower extent than one other option of your choice, but you have to say you're actively picking a killer.
Yes, they are hastening the destruction of the world. This is not a new admission for me; I've been pretty open about that. They're destructive shitheads and voting for them is a tactical decision, which I think is necessary. Ignoring that would be as dishonest as pretending the difference between him and the Tories is immaterial to millions of people.
 

crimson5pheonix

It took 6 months to read my title.
Legacy
Jun 6, 2008
36,166
3,377
118
Yes, they are hastening the destruction of the world. This is not a new admission for me; I've been pretty open about that. They're destructive shitheads and voting for them is a tactical decision, which I think is necessary. Ignoring that would be as dishonest as pretending the difference between him and the Tories is immaterial to millions of people.
Alright then. I don't actively choose bad candidates. I don't have to pick options that destroy the world, so I won't. I'd rather convince people to actually vote in their best interest.