2024 ELECTION THREAD
The next presidential race will be here soon! Please see current Bovada odds. Thoughts?
I have to agree with this. The country needs to reach a new low before it and the world can start moving in the right direction again. I don't think people realize the low we'll actually reach in the next four years but it's unfortunately the necessary medicine for the cure.
Why didn't we do that after the Nixon low? Or Reagan low? Or George W Bush low? Or Trump (who if you'll remember already was president) low?
I am not sure that Trump will be appreciably worse. the fact is the Dems have moved extremely far right domestically and refuse to pursue any slightly progressive initiatives.
you care about foreign policy more than 97-98% of the population.
You think non-interventism is always far morally preferable with absolutely no exception, you prefer outcomes without ongoing wars even if entire populations are conquered by foreign enemies.
So in your (very unusual) model the fact itself that Trump might push Ukraine to accept a very unfavourable deal is already a better outcome for the presidency than what democrats would do, i understand that.
What i don't understand is why you really completly disregard judges. I don't believe for a second that you think Gorsuch and Jackson are very similar. You know they aren't. And i think Jackson decides in a way that is far closer to your moral preferences than Gorsuch does.
So why do you think Harris nominees for federal judges (and it could be hundreds) won't be exceptionally, morally preferable to you than Trump nominees? do you actually think the judges nominated by Biden are very similar to those nominated by Trump?
Or do you think judges don't matter a lot?
Although I think the country burning down is what it needs to get better I could never be a part of causing it to happen.
Is that because you are uncertain that burning it down is best in the long run, because you can't stomach having to explain your reasoning to your social circle and family, or because of some sort of political Hippocratic oath?
Is that because you are uncertain that burning it down is best in the long run, because you can't stomach having to explain your reasoning to your social circle and family, or because of some sort of political Hippocratic oath?
It's always bizzare to see you guys not accepting the idea that not everyone is a consequentialist.
you care about foreign policy more than 97-98% of the population.
You think non-interventism is always far morally preferable with absolutely no exception, you prefer outcomes without ongoing wars even if entire populations are conquered by foreign enemies.
So in your (very unusual) model the fact itself that Trump might push Ukraine to accept a very unfavourable deal is already a better outcome for the presidency than what democrats would do, i understand that.
What i don't understand is why you r
This is a good post. I had the same thoughts and questions.
Some of my proposed explanations weren't particularly consequentialist. In any case, what do you imagine his non-consequentialist reason to be?
Harris is what he considers the better candidate and he is deontologically committed to vote for what he thinks is the best person for the job he is voting for, among alternatives (A pretty normal deontological rule many people share)
Harris is what he considers the better candidate and he is deontologically committed to vote for what he thinks is the best person for the job he is voting for, among alternatives (A pretty normal deontological rule many people share)
He believes she is better in what respect? If you can answer without discussing consequences or why a particular trait matters, I would be very surprised.
Btw the existence of the House , and the fact that it is needed to pass all legislation, makes the "senate isn't democratic" approach a little shaky.
The fact that the way the senate is elected can give minorities VETO POWERS (ie blocking legislation the 52% of the people want and pass in the house) isn't bad nor antidemocratic in any way or form. It's good that you need a lot more than 50%+1 to achieve any actual change in society, and fully compatible with democratic principles.
Still need the house to pass laws and that's very close to a "popular vote" election.
I do understand objections for the powers that are reserved to the senate though, nominees should pass BOTH the senate and the house for the process to be truly democratic.
I have to agree with this. The country needs to reach a new low before it and the world can start moving in the right direction again. I don't think people realize the low we'll actually reach in the next four years but it's unfortunately the necessary medicine for the cure.
The logical entailment of this argument is that you should vote for Trump. Did you?
He believes she is better in what respect? If you can answer without discussing consequences, I would be very surprised.
It's extremely easy to determine who is better without discussing consequences, just by discussing moral character, and value propositions they stand for / against.
Like i mean the fact itself one candidate is a convicted felon and another isn't would suffice deontologically for a lot of people.
At this point I really don’t see how Trump can lose and that’s the Dems own fault for running the worst candidate they’ve ever had. Which is saying a lot considering they are the party that once nominating Hillary Clinton [emoji23]
I mean it's really too bad because at least in Europe they're banning right wing parties or pulling out every stop to prevent them from holding any real power. They are true preservers of democracy and the will of the people.
Is that because you are uncertain that burning it down is best in the long run, because you can't stomach having to explain your reasoning to your social circle and family, or because of some sort of political Hippocratic oath?
The country is inexorably headed to dark times. It's part of the natural cycle of the human nature, ie the current populist/nationalist movements around the world. And why all countries before us have failed. I don't want any part of contributing to that downfall but I recognize its inevitability and how it's likely the only outcome that will get us to the other side of the cycle.
Btw the existence of the House , and the fact that it is needed to pass all legislation, makes the "senate isn't democratic" approach a little shaky.
The fact that the way the senate is elected can give minorities VETO POWERS (ie blocking legislation the 52% of the people want and pass in the house) isn't bad nor antidemocratic in any way or form. It's good that you need a lot more than 50%+1 to achieve any actual change in society, and fully compatible with democratic principles.
Still need the
You think the Senate is ok because its good to have small groups with outsized power because it makes minority veto possible? Ok, then, a legislative body with two Ls, two Gs, two Bs, two Ts, two +, and two cis-het would be ok by you?
Are you calling Wyomingites minorities? Lol.
And I don't think there should be a legislative body where each race or whatever gets equal representation regardless of its population.
As compared to Californians? Yes, they are, objectively so.
If you're going to defend minority rights you have to do it everywhere or you come across as someone who only cares about principles when it suits your argument.
The country is inexorably headed to dark times. It's part of the natural cycle of the human nature, ie the current populist/nationalist movements around the world. And why all countries before us have failed. I don't want any part of contributing to that downfall but I recognize its inevitability and how it's likely the only outcome that will get us to the other side of the cycle.
All countries before the US have failed? UK seems to have been around for a fair amount of time, amongst others, I'm sure.
lol
Relative to the current American population those positions aren't crazy far right. Right or left, if someone comes here to help themselves and their family and actually helps the people here as well, and a cop comes and arrests them and sends them anyway, that's evil as far as I'm concerned. And I don't think you have the right to do it just because you were born somewhere they weren't into a country that just annexed that place by force. Just because everything around you is saying it's nor
Right, because you don't care about the law or telling the truth, or anything else that keeps society together as a cohesive whole. Those things are easily dispensed with if it means your emotional outrage at imagined injustices is satiated that day. Which is exactly why we have the system we do, so people like you never get a grip and go full Kampuchea.
the entire country is like walking around in Grand Theft Auto!!! we probably have a year left!
As compared to Californians? Yes, they are, objectively so.
If you're going to defend minority rights you have to do it everywhere or you come across as someone who only cares about principles when it suits your argument.
This argument might be too dumb to engage with. Wyoming has its own state government for Wyomingites. Equal power for each US person in the federal US government. That's the principle. I don't care about minorities politically beyond getting equal rights.
The country is inexorably headed to dark times. It's part of the natural cycle of the human nature, ie the current populist/nationalist movements around the world. And why all countries before us have failed. I don't want any part of contributing to that downfall but I recognize its inevitability and how it's likely the only outcome that will get us to the other side of the cycle.
These are the best times that have ever been enjoyed in human history, and they are going to get better no matter who win election.
As compared to Californians? Yes, they are, objectively so.
If you're going to defend minority rights you have to do it everywhere or you come across as someone who only cares about principles when it suits your argument.
Pedophiles and murderers are also minorities, don’t see why every minority right needs to be protected. As long as there is a category error being made on your part in some way then it’s ok to not want to protect every minority.
East Side Wyoming this morning...
...place is a third world country
