You are making a lot of assumptions about me without really knowing anything about me. I would like to continue this discussion but I don’t think it’s worth it if you want to insist on being intellectually dishonest.
I do not consider myself a neoliberal. I spent 5 years of my life living and working on communes. I am, quite literally, a communist.
Okay. So, which one do you think we should vote for?
I guess I’m confused. Are you advocating for accelerationism regardless of the cost to human life?
That doesn’t seem particularly at odds with what I said, but I guess I’m glad you’ve got it all figured out. I’m hoping your plans to change the system work out. Genuinely. If you have actionable, realistic, achievable ideas for removing the corrupting influence of money from the world at large, I’m all ears.
In the meantime I’ll to continue to vote for whichever candidate (that stands a realistic chance at winning) I feel will do the least harm to the people I love and the institutions I begrudgingly tolerate.
I’ve already mentioned that I’m a moron, this should reinforce that.
I see. In that case, I think you may fundamentally misunderstand the world. You seem to want to frame it up as though there’s some master plan or conspiracy, instead of a bunch of individuals working in hotly contested fields, just trying to keep their jobs by doing what they perceive as best at any given moment.
From my point of view Biden didn’t have to lift a finger to expose Donald Trump as worse. Trump seemed happy to do that himself. But then, as I said, I’m a moron.
Stupid as I am, though, I don’t have to lower myself to calling people “losers”. I retired that word from my vocabulary when I graduated from elementary school.
We must have watched different debates, then. I saw one weak but curated personality, and one flawed human being. Maybe both of us are just incapable of seeing past our biases?
Is this… are you… Are you serious?
This is a ridiculous equivalence on its face, and you should feel ridiculous for saying it. A debate does not have a “winner” beyond that which any number of biased observers, such as yourself, attempt to assert. This is not baseball.
The winners in any debate, if there must be any, are the people who use what they see and hear to inform their voting choices. What, exactly, do you perceive DJT to have said and done on that stage that will convince supposed “undecided” voters to vote for him? What do you perceive Biden to have said or done that would make them decide that Mr. Trump is the better choice?
As you said:
“Undecided” voters fall into two categories:
Trump voter: “Iah aint tellin’ YEW who IAHM a-votin’ FER!”
Undecided voter trying to choose between voting and not voting.
Nobody is undecided between the candidates.
Were you yourself undecided? Or perhaps planning to vote for Biden prior to the debate, but now will vote for Trump instead? Given your analysis of undecided voters, I fail to see how the debate would have motivated the non-voters to go out and vote for a President Trump.
What I saw, personally, was two very old men who have wildly different takes on ethics and the seriousness of the position. One of which has a lot of practice being on camera. Frankly, I wouldn’t be surprised if Biden’s performance at the debate was at least somewhat intentional, setting up a wonka-esque reversal for debate #2. Considering recency bias, along with the media’s desperate need to turn everything into contentious clickbait, I think it would be a pretty brilliant tactic, even.
Of course, what do I know. I’m a moron. Much like your opinion, mine has very little value.
In the medical industry they refer to motorcycles as “donorcycles”, since, in the event of a fatality you can usually still salvage at least one or two organs from the corpse.
That said, I own a motorcycle myself. :)
I think people (not me, I agree with glitchdx, overall) are probably down voting because it’s a classic example of letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, with a healthy dose of smug mixed in. Smugness is a great dialectical tactic if you hope to entrench people deeper into their views, rather than convince them to consider alternatives through reasoned discussion.
Do I agree that ideally we’d have robust public transit and increased usage of smaller, greener personal transport solutions? Of course I do.
But, incrementalism is progress. Valuable progress. We could argue whether it’s more likely to get us to the aforementioned vision of robust public transit or not, but history has proven time and time again that progress takes time and is resisted tooth and nail by monied interests. I don’t like it either. I want to wave a wand and have everything change. OP is right. Electric cars are not the solution. But treating symptoms while you work on curing the disease is best practice.
Downvotes don’t make me wrong, chuds.
Oh look, a child is on Lemmy!
Thanks for elaborating! You raise a lot of good points.
I recently tried to consolidate all of my various email addresses into Thunderbird and oh boy is it fun trying to get a 20 year old Gmail account to cooperate. I often find myself having to open up Gmail in my browser just to get anything more complex than checking or writing new email accomplished. It doesn’t help that I have a quarter of a million messages organized between ~70 “folders”, I’m sure, but holy hell… it’s a nightmarescape. Thunderbird never stops querying the server. I’m about ready to backup all of the old messages and just burn the whole account down.
None of those are problems for me.
What is it that you hate about email, then? You’ve piqued my curiosity.
I’m not sure about that, as I’ve seen conflicting information. Medicare has existed for around 60 years, and not only have patients been more satisfied with their care on average than people with private insurance, the costs have also been lower than private insurance overall. Couple those factors with metrics from the most recent study I was able to find on the cost of single payer, and the picture seems a bit muddier than you’re presenting it.
Okay, thank you. I wasn’t sure. Why couldn’t they just pay them 50k and lobby for single payer to save money? It seems like you’re suggesting that they’d have to raise wages if single payer was implemented? Maybe I’m still confused, because it still seems like they’d save money in the long run?
Please forgive my ignorance on the topic. You seem to know a lot about it. Are you saying that they save more money than the insurance costs them?
Wow! Companies could sure save a lot of money if they lobbied for single-payer! I wonder why they don’t! 🤔
So, the Amazon & Walmart strategy?
How can you call it a “free market” if it’s actually a “free market*”?
*terms and conditions apply
I see. Frankly I can’t live my life with that level of pessimism, because if I adopt that sort of outlook then I’m very likely to sink much deeper into depression, something I’ve struggled with all my life. That sort of thinking genuinely leads me to hopelessness and suicidality.