jwiggler

Nah, you haven’t, I appreciate that

I definitely agree with all that. I think its highly highly unlikely Biden steps aside. I guess I was trying to get at why OP thinks it’s so silly that a person would think that another candidate has a better shot of beating Trump.

You’re technically right there, but I think you know what I mean: the OPs position is that if any other candidate replaced Biden, they will not have a chance of beating Trump.

Oops, I didn’t see that they had a weighted average there, I literally just counted the spread and divided. Well that’s better than I thought, but I’m still just not feeling good about November.

You can laugh me off, but I think even the fact that there are mainstream publications coming out with articles about the logistics of replacing Biden shows it’s, while not probably in any sense, still a thing on many people’s minds. I still empathize with those people and don’t think they’re laughable. But thank you for correcting me.

I mean, regardless of whether you personally believe Biden is doing well as President, that doesn’t necessarily have anything to do with the general population’s disposition toward him. And also, I just averaged the spread of each general election poll listed on that site, all of which have Trump leading.The number came out to 4.63%. That’s kinda a far cry from 1.5% that you mentioned.

Let me be clear. I do not want Trump to win. Please do not put that in my mouth. Thinking he will win and actively hoping and voting for him are not the same. I do not want to be right in my feeling that he will win.

Why try something that’s never been done before? Well, I think Trump broke politics already. We are already in unprecedented territory regarding presidential power, this particular election being between two previous Presidents, etc, so I personally don’t think the “established norm” argument holds too much water. And then you have my other arguments: The polls aren’t looking good, and we just came off a terrible debate performance.

This isn’t all to say another candidate would definitely beat Trump, or that I even think it’s a good idea to get someone else in there. But I don’t think it’s a silly or idiotic to want that, as it seems you’re making it out. I can empathize with people who feel that way, because I am also frustrated with having to choose Biden.

I was just wondering why you think its so silly, and I guess the answer is, “because it’s never been done before.” Thanks for responding.

Would you mind elaborating on this? Polls don’t favor Biden right now and obviously his debate performance was really REALLY bad. I mean, if he’s the nominee, you gotta vote for him, but I’m curious why you think it’s so crazy that a person would feel like another Democratic nominee has a better shot. Especially considering how dissatisfied almost everyone in the country is regarding the two choices we have before us, and how often the explanation of that dissatisfaction ends up being because of age.

I think it’s a pretty reasonable take to want someone other than Biden to run, considering those things I mentioned. Even if you personally think another candidate besides Biden kills the chances of us beating Trump, why do you think it’s so absurd of a position to want someone to take Bidens place?

It seems right now your position, that Biden is the only chance we have against Trump, is the one that is kinda illogical, but I’m curious what your take on that is because there’s a chance I’m not accounting for something big, like the logistics of getting a replacement candidate in there and publicized.

I pointed out the two things a knew about Jill Stein and asked for elaboration, and you’re making it out as if I knew several things about her and am just trying to incite a thrashing response.

I’m just trying to engage in regular conversation, there’s no need for you to try to make me feel stupid – I’m already coming from a place of ignorance. But hey, if it makes you feel better about yourself and your knowledgeable position, patronize away.

What does Jill Stein do?

I’m not sure, that’s why I was asking the individual to elaborate. Thanks.

Booyeah, preciate it

Their campaigns are undeniably good for Trump, but I don’t think that makes them Trump allies. Besides Jill Stein attending the same dinner as Putin, and accusing the west of encircling Russia, mind elaborating your view of her being a Russian asset?

Edit: Hey all you down voters, how do you expect to get your point across when actually curious people ask simple goddamn questions about your position and you act like they just slapped your mom

I discovered Mastodon the night the Wagner group started marching toward Moscow, and was seeing live updates. From telegram or something. That was crazy.

When are we going to protest. This is insanity.

Here is an excerpt from the dissent:

Looking beyond the fate of this particular prosecution, the long-term consequences of today’s decision are stark. The Court effectively creates a law-free zone around the President, upsetting the status quo that has existed since the Founding. This new official-acts immunity now “lies about like a loaded weapon” for any President that wishes to place his own interests, his own political survival, or his own financial gain, above the interests of the Nation. Korematsu v. United States, 323 U. S. 214, 246 (1944) (Jackson, J., dissenting). The President of the United States is the most powerful person in the country, and possibly the world. When he uses his official powers in any way, under the majority’s reasoning, he now will be insulated from criminal prosecution. Orders the Navy’s Seal Team 6 to assassinate a political rival? Immune. Organizes a military coup to hold onto power? Immune. Takes a bribe in ex- change for a pardon Immune. Immune, immune, immune.

Let the President violate the law, let him exploit the trappings of his office for personal gain, let him use his official power for evil ends. Because if he knew that he may one day face liability for breaking the law, he might not be as bold and fearless as we would like him to be. That is the majority’s message today.

Even if these nightmare scenarios never play out, and I pray they never do, the damage has been done. The relationship between the President and the people he serves has shifted irrevocably. In every use of official power, the President is now a king above the law.

I get what you’re saying, but I’m not certain the Iranian drone attack would have even happened if Israel hadn’t been engaged in the raising of Gaza with US backing.

I mean, Israel bombed an Iranian embassy two weeks before that occurred.

I’m in somewhat agreement with you. On the one hand, there are innocent Israelis who need to be protected (here, I don’t necessarily buy the nuclear risk, tbh. Continued US protection is more about prevention of civilian casualties, to me ). On the other, our continued support further emboldens Israel to keep fucking shit up over there, so of course they’re going to experience aggression from their neighbors.

Unfortunately this starts getting into a game of who-shot-first, which is a bad state to be in.

If anything, all this is a win-win for the “defense” industry.

Edit: also, for the record, and in the context of this thread, even though I’d argue against continued US military support of Israel, and that Biden hasn’t been forceful enough on that issue, and that Democrats in general are too comfortable with the status quo regarding free market capitalism for individuals and socialism for the corporations, and that many of them serve their own interests or those of corporations, you still gotta vote for Biden this election, especially if you’re in a swing state. The two parties are not the same, even if they do both suck. The degrees of suckage are not equal.

Guess I just don’t see the flattening of Gaza and displacement of more than 1 million Palestinian civilians as Israel “fighting for it’s survival,” nor do I see an immediate cessation of sending US bombs to Israel as leaving them in the dust.

Are you saying that if the US stops sending Israel weapons, they will likely start a nuclear war? Bruh

The top comment on this thread contains a conversation (argument) about Chomsky’s view on the term “genocide,” as well as his verbiage discussing Serbian-run concentration camps.

I listened to Understanding Power fairly recently and it definitely changed my outlook and broke me out of the lull of neoliberal self-satisfaction, and helped introduce me to other leftist writers. So I’m a fan of Chomsky’s, but it doesn’t sound like he had that good of a take on the Bosnian genocide. He seems to only reserve the word genocide for the Holocaust so as to keep its significance, and despite supporting a UN fact-finding commission that did find Serbia was running concentration camps, he refers to said camps as “refugee camps,” instead, and seems to infer people had the freedom to stay or leave as they please (even if this was technically true, I doubt it was practically true).

So, not a good look for him, even though he had other viewpoints that I’ve been strongly influenced by.

Have you happened to read the book? He has a chapter dedicated to his decision to call it technofeudalism rather than capitalism, hypercapitalism, technocapitalism, etc. Basically he’s saying profits have been decoupled from a company’s value, and that it’s no longer about creating a product to exchange for profit (which, in his words, are beholden to market competition) but instead about extracting rent (which is not beholden to competition – his example is while a landowner’s neighbors increase the values of their properties, the landowner’s property value also increases).

Anyways he describes Amazon, Apple store, Google Play, cloud service providers, as fiefdoms that collect rent from actual producers of products (physical goods, but also applications), and don’t actually produce anything, themselves, besides access to customers, while also extracting value from users of their technologies through personal information. They’re effectively leasing consumer attention in the same way landowners leased their lands to workers.

It sounds pretty accurate to me, but I haven’t had much time to chew on it. What’s your take on that idea?

Actually, you’re not being clear, at all. The article you linked, yourself, notes that the 37 murdered political candidates were local government candidates murdered between September and May, not national candidates. Far cry from your insinuation that 37 of Claudia Sheinbaum’s political opponents were murdered so she could win by the hands of the cartels.

That last section of the article you highlighted makes me think about Bullshit Jobs by David Graeber. Imagine if everyone going to bullshit meetings actually did something productive for society, or did something that they themselves found fulfilling. Makes me sad.

Oh yeah that one is bad, you’re right. Also the meme with the bell curve is definitely ableist. Hmm, you definitely bring up good points. Gotta chew on it a little. Much of this is just ingrained in us.