Update: Joe Biden rambled in generalities on camera for around 10 minutes today in the same clothing he wore the last time he addressed the nation.
The Democratic Primary is Upon Us! - Biden is the Presumptive Nominee
- Thread starter Tireseas_v1legacy
- Start date
[tweet t="https://twitter.com/NotMattrellen/status/1242227649382174722"]
And this is why Tom Perez should be prosecuted. Also, Symone Sanders (for saying the CDC said voting was safe) and Chris Cuomo (for not challenging her when she said that on his news show).
And this is why Tom Perez should be prosecuted. Also, Symone Sanders (for saying the CDC said voting was safe) and Chris Cuomo (for not challenging her when she said that on his news show).
He already has - every 'appearance' is a deep-fake by the deep-state that's readying HRC to run as VP, aka POTUS in the event of his untimely death.Marik2 said:
(Trump-level incompetence is too far, they need 'pretend liberal' to camouflage the manipulation and provide a 'relief', but obviously not Bernie, who Actually Means It.)
I don't think he's dead. He's just completely incapable of handling the public speaking part of a Presidential campaign, mentally as well as, now, ideologically. Stale, pharma-driven politics is not what we need and neither is vacuous pablum delivered poorly.Kwak said:
[tweet t="https://twitter.com/2cents4change/status/1242221904804577280"]
And then there's this: [tweet t="https://twitter.com/ryangrim/status/1242541930925481991"]
And this!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WayNY3K0yu4
And this!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WayNY3K0yu4
Doesn't really matter - don't need to be of sound mind to be president. Just look at the current WH occupant.Seanchaidh said:
Besides, Trump is looking more likely to get re-elected. Crises tend to push voters to the right. Secondly, expectations of Trump are sufficiently low that he can "fail up" by simply being less incompetent than he normally is. Sure, he might have wasted 6 weeks sitting on his arse telling everyone there wasn't a problem as it was just a case of the sniffles instead of prepping thoroughly, and that might end up resulting in thousands to tens of thousands of preventable deaths. But that's what PR is for, isn't it - the groundwork's already been laid: Democrats and media complaining about nothing, blame China. You mum or dad might be dead, but that's life, isn't it?
Here's how I look at this:Marik2 said:
If it were Bernie vs. Trump, I'd be voting for the candidate more likely to take a dump on the Resolute desk.
Since Wall Street decided it will be Biden vs. Trump, I'm going to be voting for the candidate least likely to take a dump on the Resolute desk.
And all of this boils down to stopping M4A by any means necessary.Marik2 said:
During a global pandemic.
"Right" must be standing in for some other collection of lurking variables, as that certainly isn't a satisfactory explanation of that process when it actually does happen. In any case, there is some anecdotal evidence that it is currently doing the opposite in the United States.Agema said:
I'd say crises tend to push voters towards easily-explained, easily-digested solutions to complex problems. People don't want to address underlying or systemic issues, or recognise problems with their own behaviour. The right (or, at least, the British Conservatives and US Republicans) tend to offer straightforward, simplistic approaches that are easily understood (fairly often featuring a scapegoat).Seanchaidh said:
As with the climate crisis: It's difficult to countenance that we need to address long-term trends in consumerist culture, or that we need to think about the whole production process for various products. Hence the popularity of dismissiveness or conspiracy theories among the right.
& as with wage depreciation and unemployment: it's difficult to countenance that we need wide-ranging structural overhaul, and that the society we live in is not meritocratic. Hence the right's tendency to blame economic woes on migrants and benefit claimants.
So, with this crisis, it's only the Left that will bother pointing out that diseases such as COVID-19 only have the opportunity to leap from species to species due to unregulated back-alley meat markets. The right will just tell us to knuckle down and stiff-upper-lip (if they're not outright lying to us that it's all blown out of proportion, like Trump or Bolsonaro).
Which is precisely why I keep arguing the left needs to drop the woo-woo shit when it comes to climate change, and change tact to hit the issue hard on the national security angle. I absolutely loathe 'national security liberals' and 'nationalist liberals' like few others do thanks to their unabashed corporatism and neoconservatism, but this is one talking point the left should eagerly co-opt to advance their agenda. "Decades from now climate change will create unprecedented food and housing crises" isn't as immediate or throat-gripping as, say, "petrodollars fueled 9/11".Silvanus said:
Literally the exact opposite is what has been occurring. The right has been the faction to point to bushmeat consumption and unregulated wet markets, in the pursuit of what you (rightly) pointed out: scapegoating. The left has busied itself calling the right racist, and making appeals to cultural relativism, for it. "Both sides" are right, but for all the wrong reasons: global inequity, uneven distribution of wealth and resources, and cultural imperialism are a primary driver for bushmeat consumption and wet markets, and to a certain extent one state or culture ought not interfere in good faith, humane, and safe practices of others, but playing white savior to protect unsafe and inhumane practices does no good and neither does scapegoating.
This is as big a vindication of Marxist theory as one can get: social and economic elites are playing the right and left against one another to protect global economic inequality. Keep the useful idiots fighting over wet markets, rather than paying heed to why they exist in the form they do.
I largely agree, but the climate change debate in Sweden has largely centered on the "what kind of world will our children inherit"-angle and the need for measures now to avoid massive refugee streams[footnote]After the massive 2015 influx of refugees, invoking refugee streams and make vague threats about another refugee crisis is a great way to get some quick good will from pretty much all parties but the left in Sweden[/footnote], flooding of Swedish cities etc., yet the trajectory of the discourse went pretty much the same way as in the rest of the Western world. That is to say, the dividing line goes somewhere a bit to the right of the center of politics. Everyone to the left of that divide will agree about the pressing need for action, everyone to the right will remain skeptical and argue that it is not that bad, that we need to think of the economy or that it is all a hoax orchestrated by (((global banking))).Eacaraxe said:
I think the problem is that climate change is one of those issues where you can't be very moderate, because if you agree that it is real you also agree that it requires massive changes to our way of life, the way we structure society and our patterns of consumption and it needs to happen right now. So if you don't want a massive change to free market capitalism, nation states, government intervention, global cooperation or social stratification based on economic means, it is easier to keep on denying climate change and its impacts. Because the alternative is to admit that a lot of what you hold as important in politics is either irrelevant or wrong under the circumstances and the left (the commies, the tree huggers etc.) were right and have more solutions to the problem then you do. Easier then to just deny it all, pretend as if nothing bad will happen if you ignore it and make some non-PC jokes about Greta Thunberg.
This goes into research into the psychologies of people who tend to vote right or left. Right wingers are thought to be more threat-aware, anxious, and prefer stability and structure. However, if you subject people to sufficient feeling of threat, they tend to move towards "right wing" ways of thinking: and it is suggested they may well be more likely to vote that way too. Part of this is thought to be why the many right wingers often makes a lot of noise about threats and enemies; it not only reflects their mindset but works to make other people move more right wing.Seanchaidh said:
I actually disagree, to a certain extent: there is more than enough room for moderate positions on fossil fuel use reduction and transition to renewable energy sources, and creation of sustainable economic models. Note I say that, rather than climate change -- my entire point is the same policy outcomes can be reached through alternative means of persuasion, independent from climate change itself. The problem as I see it, is your point hinges on climate change being a point of absolute obstinacy and orthodoxy on the left, to the point in some cases to pseudoscience (especially when it comes to nuclear energy and novel solutions for environmental damage). That alone needlessly and destructively polarizes the argument, for exactly the reasons specified.Gethsemani said:
The right has essentially erected a firewall on climate change in defense of fossil fuels. The left needs to acknowledge this, and start finding back doors to make persuasive arguments that cannot be easily defended against, to achieve the same policy goals. Those arguments may not always be desirable, but the left needs to concede to itself the issue is of such paramount importance it is worth sacrificing purity to achieve results.