The White House is considering executive action that would allow President Joe Biden to effectively shut down the border to migrants crossing unlawfully, according to three sources familiar with the matter—a maneuver reminiscent of controversial action from the Donald Trump era and is sure to invite fierce backlash from immigration advocates and progressives.
And you all told me the blue maga border bill that Republicans rejected was 4d chess.
I don’t know how to address this level of delusion without going over a hundred years of American political history, which I suspect would be lost on you.
I love how you parade your ignorance. The Democratic candidate absolutely can be decided at the convention. All it would require is the current president engaging in an extremely unpopular genocide that IS going to cost him the election step down. You know, if he actually wanted to protect the country from Trump
My guy, if fascism comes to America, I’m a mentally ill near-sighted cripple living significantly below the poverty line with an irregular income with few practical skills.
So… Just to be clear with your previous arguments about being perfectly okay with sacrificing people, you’d actually vote for a Democratic candidate that was better than Trump in all ways, except he advocated for euthanizing, in your words, cripples?
You expect Palestinians to vote for the man providing the weapons that are being used to kill their entire families. You’d make the same sacrifice you expect of others?
And separately, prepper delusions aren’t going to be much help.
Tell that to the Italians. You keep using the word Fascism, without thinking through the ramifications of that word. It’s not a prepper fantasy to say that if you believe the end of democracy is nigh, and fascism is coming, that you should start stockpiling weapons to try to prevent the concentration camps. Something you also don’t seem to have a problem with, as long as they’re not in America.
The reason the former is supposedly better, when paired with minority rights, is that it doesn’t lead to things like genocide.
I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of democracy.
I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the last 200 years of political theory.
So… Just to be clear with your previous arguments about being perfectly okay with sacrificing people, you’d actually vote for a Democratic candidate that was better than Trump in all ways, except he advocated for euthanizing, in your words, cripples?
Yes, absolutely. Fuck, man, that’s not even that far off. The US health care system as is is going to end me before long, and Biden isn’t going to do a damn thing about it. I still don’t want anyone else to be fucked who can be saved from being fucked.
Also, in this example, Trump should be advocating the torture and euthanization of cripples. Because Trump’s track record and rhetoric are both considerably worse on the issue of Palestine and Israel.
If asked to choose between “More evil” and “Less”, pick less. If asked to choose between having your entire family killed and having your brother killed, pick your brother. No one is saved by picking the greater evil. It’s not a moral choice. It’s not helpful. It’s just a tantrum.
All of your other points are just rehashing the same arguments made before.
Yes, absolutely. Fuck, man, that’s not even that far off. The US health care system as is is going to end me before long, and Biden isn’t going to do a damn thing about it. I still don’t want anyone else to be fucked who can be saved from being fucked.
Sigh I can’t disagree with you there. At all.
Especially with the way this administration and everyone seems to have forgotten Covid is still a mass disabling event.
All of your other points are just rehashing the same arguments made before.
You’re right, they are. You’d sacrifice everything to prevent the end of democracy, without the recognition that to a significant enough portion of the population if genocide is on the table democracy already ended.
And you’d rather blame them, then literally the one man who could, in your arguments, save it. According to polling, basically anyone but Biden beats Trump. Fuck man, even the NYTimes with Nate Silver is starting to push the idea that Biden needs step down for the sake of the country.
You’re right, they are. You’d sacrifice everything to prevent the end of democracy, without the recognition that to a significant enough portion of the population if genocide is on the table democracy already ended.
No, that’s really not how democracy works. It’s not “Democracy unless it does something evil, then it’s not democracy.”
Democracy is not some good, pure, angelic ideal. It’s ugly. It’s asking people what they want. And oftentimes, people want shitty fucking things.
According to polling, basically anyone but Biden beats Trump.
That’s literally not true, and I can dig up plenty of polls which disprove that handily. More pertinently, no one who is running performs better than Biden, except “Unknown Generic Democrat Who Everyone Can Project Their Views Onto” which every minor candidate in the primary wants to convince everyone they are.
Fuck man, even the NYTimes with Nate Silver is starting to push the idea that Biden needs step down for the sake of the country.
Nate Silver also pushes ‘Both Sides’. He’s a statistician, not a polisci specialist.
Nate Silver also pushes ‘Both Sides’. He’s a statistician, not a polisci specialist.
He’s a good person to watch to get a feeling for what the people who would make the decision of who to run in the Democratic Convention are thinking. Since that is what matters, and not, you know, democracy.
I’m curious, do you play board games, and if you do, how do you feel about board games that contain “kingmaking” elements?
It’s related, I promise.
Also, I apologize for the earlier insults and claims of bad faith. I strongly disagree with you, but you didn’t deserve those. I’m sorry.
He’s a good person to watch to get a feeling for what the people who would make the decision of who to run in the Democratic Convention are thinking.
… is he? Nate Silver is a statistician without strong ties to the Democratic Party. Why would his opinions influence the decisionmakers in the DNC? Or reflect them?
I’m curious, do you play board games, and if you do, how do you feel about board games that contain “kingmaking” elements?
Haven’t played any board games in a long time, but I used to enjoy those kinds. I used to play In The Shadow Of The Emperor.
Also, I apologize for the earlier insults and claims of bad faith. I strongly disagree with you, but you didn’t deserve those. I’m sorry.
Nah, it’s fine. I don’t trust anyone who doesn’t get heated about politics. It’s one of the things in the world where you absolutely SHOULD be pissed.
He absolutely reflects the opinions of a very specific subset of people that that also has the decision makers as a subset.
There absolutely several public figures you can watch that reflect the views of the people that make the decisions.
Kingmaking is a thing that happens in games that involve more than two people where at the end game it becomes clear that only two people could potentially win, and the other players have to continue playing without the possibility to win, but end up with the power to make a choice on who of the two potential winners does in fact win.
Some people absolutely hate it, and feel that any decision made by one of the players that can’t win that involves anything that isn’t self-motivated as cheating.
Some people don’t love it, but don’t hate it, and have the view that the two people winning should take into account their own popularity with the decisions they make before the game devolved into only two potential winner, and that if they lose from people being mad at previous decisions that it is their own fault.
I’ve tried to give an unbiased description, though I obviously have an opinion.
I love how you parade your ignorance. The Democratic candidate absolutely can be decided at the convention. All it would require is the current president engaging in an extremely unpopular genocide that IS going to cost him the election step down. You know, if he actually wanted to protect the country from Trump
So… Just to be clear with your previous arguments about being perfectly okay with sacrificing people, you’d actually vote for a Democratic candidate that was better than Trump in all ways, except he advocated for euthanizing, in your words, cripples?
You expect Palestinians to vote for the man providing the weapons that are being used to kill their entire families. You’d make the same sacrifice you expect of others?
Tell that to the Italians. You keep using the word Fascism, without thinking through the ramifications of that word. It’s not a prepper fantasy to say that if you believe the end of democracy is nigh, and fascism is coming, that you should start stockpiling weapons to try to prevent the concentration camps. Something you also don’t seem to have a problem with, as long as they’re not in America.
I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the last 200 years of political theory.
Yes, absolutely. Fuck, man, that’s not even that far off. The US health care system as is is going to end me before long, and Biden isn’t going to do a damn thing about it. I still don’t want anyone else to be fucked who can be saved from being fucked.
Also, in this example, Trump should be advocating the torture and euthanization of cripples. Because Trump’s track record and rhetoric are both considerably worse on the issue of Palestine and Israel.
If asked to choose between “More evil” and “Less”, pick less. If asked to choose between having your entire family killed and having your brother killed, pick your brother. No one is saved by picking the greater evil. It’s not a moral choice. It’s not helpful. It’s just a tantrum.
All of your other points are just rehashing the same arguments made before.
Sigh I can’t disagree with you there. At all.
Especially with the way this administration and everyone seems to have forgotten Covid is still a mass disabling event.
You’re right, they are. You’d sacrifice everything to prevent the end of democracy, without the recognition that to a significant enough portion of the population if genocide is on the table democracy already ended.
And you’d rather blame them, then literally the one man who could, in your arguments, save it. According to polling, basically anyone but Biden beats Trump. Fuck man, even the NYTimes with Nate Silver is starting to push the idea that Biden needs step down for the sake of the country.
No, that’s really not how democracy works. It’s not “Democracy unless it does something evil, then it’s not democracy.”
Democracy is not some good, pure, angelic ideal. It’s ugly. It’s asking people what they want. And oftentimes, people want shitty fucking things.
That’s literally not true, and I can dig up plenty of polls which disprove that handily. More pertinently, no one who is running performs better than Biden, except “Unknown Generic Democrat Who Everyone Can Project Their Views Onto” which every minor candidate in the primary wants to convince everyone they are.
Nate Silver also pushes ‘Both Sides’. He’s a statistician, not a polisci specialist.
He’s a good person to watch to get a feeling for what the people who would make the decision of who to run in the Democratic Convention are thinking. Since that is what matters, and not, you know, democracy.
I’m curious, do you play board games, and if you do, how do you feel about board games that contain “kingmaking” elements?
It’s related, I promise.
Also, I apologize for the earlier insults and claims of bad faith. I strongly disagree with you, but you didn’t deserve those. I’m sorry.
… is he? Nate Silver is a statistician without strong ties to the Democratic Party. Why would his opinions influence the decisionmakers in the DNC? Or reflect them?
Haven’t played any board games in a long time, but I used to enjoy those kinds. I used to play In The Shadow Of The Emperor.
Nah, it’s fine. I don’t trust anyone who doesn’t get heated about politics. It’s one of the things in the world where you absolutely SHOULD be pissed.
There absolutely several public figures you can watch that reflect the views of the people that make the decisions.
Kingmaking is a thing that happens in games that involve more than two people where at the end game it becomes clear that only two people could potentially win, and the other players have to continue playing without the possibility to win, but end up with the power to make a choice on who of the two potential winners does in fact win.
Some people absolutely hate it, and feel that any decision made by one of the players that can’t win that involves anything that isn’t self-motivated as cheating.
Some people don’t love it, but don’t hate it, and have the view that the two people winning should take into account their own popularity with the decisions they make before the game devolved into only two potential winner, and that if they lose from people being mad at previous decisions that it is their own fault.
I’ve tried to give an unbiased description, though I obviously have an opinion.
Hopefully the parallel is obvious, too.