• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.

The Race For 2024

First of all, I thought that you yourself were not demanding perfection, yet you seem critical of others who fail to demand perfection. I don't see your position on perfection as a consistent one. Either you demand it, or you don't. So, if you don't see "nobody's perfect" as a reasonable defense, why are you leaving that option open for yourself?
Because "I demand perfection" is a strawman argument. Why would I defend an idea that isn't mine? I criticize trends and behaviors like rampant militarization, lack of executive accountability, and state sponsorship of genocide because I find them morally reprehensible and deeply dangerous to the ongoing stability of our nation-state. Not because I think they "lack perfection". They do, but that's quite beside the point. I never said a damned thing about perfection, nor would. I honestly can't think of any philosophical question less relevant to the question of who to endorse for the presidency. Only fools and cultists think their candidate is perfect.

Yet you go on and on about "imperfections", as if you have some kind of moral high ground that you are defending. You don't. You vote for the same candidates we do, and your criticisms don't make you any better than the rest of us. Nobody here sponsors genocide, nor does anyone think you do because you are going to vote for a candidate that will obviously continue policies that you think lead to genocide. So get off your high horse. It isn't going to take you anywhere.

It seems to me that you are either quibbling over the degree of evil that you will tolerate, or you are intolerant of any degree of evil. So why are you voting for Harris? Are you willing to tolerate the degree of evil that you perceive in her? Or are you flexible on what you consider the threshold between evil and just "not perfect" to be?
Of course I'm "quibbling over the degree of evil that I will tolerate". It's called having a conscience, dude. And yes, the vast majority of human actions fall somewhere between "perfect", whatever that might be, and... well, I suppose most actions are evil to some degree. One man's gain being another's loss. But I think we can minimize evil conduct if we try, and should try. Shooting a Palestinian kid in the head because you hate their parents is a choice, and it is definitely a worse choice than giving them a sandwich. Not because child murder "isn't perfect", but because it is wrong to take an innocent life before they have the opportunity to choose their own convictions. I don't understand how you made it as far through life without forming any sort of nuance in considering moral actions. Where did you get this dumbass idea that there is a "perfect" to begin with? Did Jesus tell you to be perfect? Well, I know he did, but did you believe him? Because I didn't.

Who do you think you are talking to? Does anyone here really want to shoot a Palestinian kid in the head? I hate the current administration's rubber stamp Israeli policy just as much as you do, yet we are still voting for Harris, who mouths administration policy on that subject. If anything, she has been more negative about it--about as much as she can be while still being part of this administration. It remains to be seen whether anything will change on that score after she takes office.

FTR, I find it highly insulting and arrogant when you say things like "I don't understand how you made it as far through life without forming any sort of nuance in considering moral actions. Where did you get this dumbass idea that there is a "perfect" to begin with?" You really come off as a righteously moral asshole when you say things like that, and I would have expected better from you. I have nothing to do with Jesus or any other religious mythology.

And I notice you did not bother to answer my question. It isn't obvious why someone of your high moral character would vote for Harris. Obviously, it is understandable why someone like myself, who lacks "nuance when considering moral actions," would.

What action are you asking for that the rest of us are unwilling to take, but you are willing to take? Are you going to lead, or just be a voice shouting from the back of the crowd?
With any and all available power that I have, yes. I may be many things, but I am certainly not lazy. You are, if you're asking me to tell you what your community needs from you. Go find out, and do it.

What does your "yes" response affirm? What action are you asking us that we aren't already doing but that you are? I'm not asking you to lead us. I'm asking us where you would take us if you did.
 
Elect the president that will fuck things up the least. Trying to change the way things are run by swapping in a president the is way outside the status quo is a non starter. Even if we elected someone like Bernie or Elizabeth Warren (who aren’t even remotely radical)
How are they not radical?
they would be completely impotent without changing out the house.
Most people in the House are spineless followers that just vote for "president's agenda". Senate is more independent, but even there Manchin and Sinema were excoriated for refusing to go along with "the entirety of President Biden's agenda" when he proposed the $3,500,000,000,000.00 Speandpalooza. And now both are gone. You don't think Gallego would not rubber stamp anything Bernie proposed, no matter how extreme and expensive?
People really need to focus on state politics if we want to have a fraction of a chance of fixing things without burning everything down. GOP has done the most work to take states where they can seriously fuck around with districts and solidify their minority rule.
That is true. GOP has been far more strategic for decades. Now they are in disarray though.
 
Stands to reason, considering. The Friends are not big fans of the military super-state either.
200w.gif
 
Did I stutter? I feel that mass infanticide is unforgivably evil, that applies to Hamas as well.
You only mentioned a Palestinian child, and somehow blamed Harris for it.
Not true. Harris is somewhat complicit in these acts, but they are not her personal responsibility; the US' involvement with Israel and role as a selective mass supplier of armaments to the global community was not the work of any one person, and I see the leadership of both of our political parties as being drenched in the blood that has resulted from the many decades of US foreign policy that accepted those conditions as normative.

I do not see your further distinction as greatly meaningful even if I thought it were true. Two wrongs, as most people learn in childhood, do not make a right.
 
Last edited:
Who do you think you are talking to? Does anyone here really want to shoot a Palestinian kid in the head? I hate the current administration's rubber stamp Israeli policy just as much as you do, yet we are still voting for Harris, who mouths administration policy on that subject. If anything, she has been more negative about it--about as much as she can be while still being part of this administration. It remains to be seen whether anything will change on that score after she takes office.
The distance between what I said (I am feeling depressed about the future of the country following the convention) and what you apparently read (I wish to personally attack future President Harris for being too imperfect) is making it very difficult to communicate. I cannot and have no reason to defend a point that isn't mine. I agree that Harris' position on Israel has been, like her position on damn near every subject, vague at best. Purposefully vague, as even many who like and support her campaign much more vigorously would agree. What I see as dangerously non-committal in the face of an imminent right-wing theocratic coup d'etat, they simply see as a clever way to get more votes out of the undecided middle. Which, it is. But that's why watching the convention left me feeling depressed and alienated. It is very clear that when the Trump regime or its descendants come for me, the response from the Democrats will be similarly muted and carefully diplomatic. Harris would happily defend me, I'm sure, against a bill to "Kill all gays tomorrow". But that's not how the assault will begin. Has begun, rather. The right's obsession with trans people is not just about trans people.

FTR, I find it highly insulting and arrogant when you say things like "I don't understand how you made it as far through life without forming any sort of nuance in considering moral actions. Where did you get this dumbass idea that there is a "perfect" to begin with?" You really come off as a righteously moral asshole when you say things like that, and I would have expected better from you. I have nothing to do with Jesus or any other religious mythology.
Then why are you bringing up all this nonsense about "perfection"? I have never had such a childish view of morality, to my recollection not even when I was a child. There is more to ethics than "all right" or "all wrong", "perfect" or "flawed".
That's a really stupid moral argument, and it isn't mine. So where did you get it from? There may well be, but I am not aware of, any non-Christian moralities that adjoin a person to be objectively "perfect"; it's just that one Bible verse that lays such an absurd responsibility and guilt on people, and I have always disagreed with it.

And I notice you did not bother to answer my question. It isn't obvious why someone of your high moral character would vote for Harris.
Lack of options and probably groundless hope for the future. There may be some hope for negotiation with a Harris administration, some time perhaps for cultural attitudes to shift. If Trump wins in November, there is no hope at all for either, not even a fool's hope, until after we've gone all the way through the fire. So how else will I spend my vote? Between "very little" or "nothing" is not much of a choice but it is the choice we've been handed. I don't hate Kamala Harris, despite what you seem to be implying. I don't think she can or will reverse our country's headlong march into authoritarianism, but who knows whether anyone could stop that. Frankly, I think people put way too much faith in presidents, and it has only made things more dangerous. I don't think that Kamala Harris is a "bad person", and should she win, I'll allow myself a day or two of celebration, before rolling up my sleeves and getting back to the grim day-to-day of my political and professional work. Much as I did when Obama was elected. It will still be a relief that Trump was not elected. It will still be a victory that a woman, and Berkeleyite, and a person of mixed race, was able to break multiple iron ceilings at a go. It will open the door to a much more expansive imagination of what the White House can or could be for every generation to follow. A remarkable and indelible triumph for as long as our democracy lasts. I'm just, you know, still extremely worried about how long that will be. Harris is not personally responsible for the rise of the Alt-Right, not even Trump himself could claim that honor. He profitably jumped on board a gravy train that was already rolling; the fault lies with all of us, not just in a handful of celebrity politicians.

I do not agree that I am a person of "high moral character".

It's funny that you are now trying to castigate me for voting for Harris, when not that long ago quite a few people in this very thread were dogpiling me for saying that I was considering abstaining from this same election in the immediate aftermath of Biden/Newsom's publicity tour in Israel. I don't recall whether you were one of them, but clearly that option would be no more popular in general.
 
Last edited:
It wasn't Trump who ordered the first extrajudicial killing of an American citizen deemed a threat by the executive branch.
Do you mean Anwar Al-Alwaki? He was a US citizen in name only. In reality he was a traitor under COTUS Art. III, §3 as he was "levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort".
Hers will be an executive branch defined by rigorous defense of the status quo. In short, a conservative government,
How? Her proposals have been rather left wing.
This may indeed keep fascism at bay for four more years, but it will do nothing to combat the rising tide, any more than some waffly words about caring for the environmemt will combat the actual rising tide.
Why? Also, how do you define "fascism"?
 
In reality he was a traitor under COTUS Art. III, §3 as he was "levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort".
If a person commits an act of treason as defined by Constitutional law, there is a correct process for accusing them of it. Using US troops and equipment to end their life without a trial is not that process, and Obama's actions opened the door wide for future extra-judicial killings of anyone the head of state considers a "terrorist". I would have supposed, as an ardent supporter of the 1/6 rioters, that you would have more concern for the implications of such a standard. You must surely know that the conspirators are openly considered domestic terrorists by most on the political left? So far, every person involved in that event has had their right to a fair trial observed, but we have no guarantee, at this stage of the game, that this will always be the case. To quote the very next sentence of the same document:

"No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court."

That is an important right of every citizen, and you should not be so eager to surrender it. Do you wish to be afraid to travel because it has become an open secret that enemies of the state become vulnerable to extralegal exceution should they leave its borders, as has become the norm in Putin's Russia?

Because it reinforces the key social values that lead to fascist ideological construction, and because it means it is unlikely that the Democratcs of the next four years will succeed or even try limit the extralegal powers that the presidency has so recently acquired.

Also, how do you define "fascism"?
Fascism is a political trend that has appeared in mutliple societies over the past two centuries, manifesting as extreme nationalism and militarism tied to notions of racial, religious, and cultural superiority on the part of a single ruling party and figurehead leader, which comes to power by stoking fears of an externalized "other" within the state.
 
Last edited:
If a person commits an act of treason as defined by Constitutional law, there is a correct process for accusing them of it. Using US troops and equipment to end their life without a trial is not that process, and Obama's actions opened the door wide for future extra-judicial killings of anyone the head of state considers a "terrorist".
Al-Alwaki was in Yemen, and it was not an option to arrest and try him. If a German-American went to the European theater in 1943 and took up arm for the Reich, would you also bellyache if he had been killed and not arrrested?
I would have supposed, as an ardent supporter of the 1/6 rioters,
Who said I was a supporter of these rioters, much less an "ardent" one? But trespassing in the Capitol is not treason. Joining Al Qaeda is.
I might as well call you an ardent supporter of Al Qaeda for defending Anwar al-Alwaki on here.
You must surely know that the conspirators are openly considered domestic terrorists by most on the political left?
Well, that's the political left for you. And again, I do not support the 1/6 riots. But I reject the hyperbole by the political left (+Loren) who at the same time downplay the far more destructive 2020 riots and insurrections.
Fascism is a political trend that has appeared in mutliple societies over the past two centuries, manifesting as extreme nationalism and militarism tied to notions of racial, religious, and cultural superiority on the part of a single ruling party and figurehead leader, whcih comes to power by stoking fears of an externalized "other" within the state.
And you think a Kamala presidency will bring US closer to fascism how? By going after 1/6ers through extralegal means?
 
The US has a foreign policy view of "those two are fighting each other, we must figure out which side are the good guys and support them, we must figure out which side are the bad guys and oppose them." It is a foolish policy.

When the good guys start doing bad things, they're no longer the good guys.

Sometimes there are no good guys.

When the US says "we are sending support" it don't mean "medicine, taking in refugees, etc." The US means "we are sending you bullets and bombs".
 
Because "I demand perfection" is a strawman argument. Why would I defend an idea that isn't mine? I criticize trends and behaviors like rampant militarization, lack of executive accountability, and state sponsorship of genocide because I find them morally reprehensible and deeply dangerous to the ongoing stability of our nation-state. Not because I think they "lack perfection". They do, but that's quite beside the point. I never said a damned thing about perfection, nor would. I honestly can't think of any philosophical question less relevant to the question of who to endorse for the presidency. Only fools and cultists think their candidate is perfect.
You definitely seem to be a glass half empty sort of guy. If I understand correctly you are a trans person. Do you not see how your rights and privileges have expanded in just ten years? How gay rights have expanded in the last twenty? Hell, we have a black woman who has an extremely great chance of becoming the next president.

And yes, you do seem to be making the perfect the enemy of the good.
 
Seen elsewhere:
Trump says

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
Who is negotiating for us in the Middle East? Bombs are dropping all over the place! Sleepy Joe is sleeping on a Beach in California, viciously Exiled by the Democrats, and Comrade Kamala is doing a campaign bus tour with Tampon Tim, her really bad V.P. Pick. Let’s not have World War lll, because that’s where we’re heading!

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
Comrade Kamala will obliterate Social Security and Medicare by giving it away to the Millions of Illegal Immigrants who are infiltrating our Country!

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
There will be no future under Comrade Kamala Harris, because she will take us into a Nuclear World War III! She will never be respected by the Tyrants of the World!
 
Seen elsewhere:
Trump says

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
Who is negotiating for us in the Middle East? Bombs are dropping all over the place! Sleepy Joe is sleeping on a Beach in California, viciously Exiled by the Democrats, and Comrade Kamala is doing a campaign bus tour with Tampon Tim, her really bad V.P. Pick. Let’s not have World War lll, because that’s where we’re heading!

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
Comrade Kamala will obliterate Social Security and Medicare by giving it away to the Millions of Illegal Immigrants who are infiltrating our Country!

Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrump
There will be no future under Comrade Kamala Harris, because she will take us into a Nuclear World War III! She will never be respected by the Tyrants of the World!
He is such a stupid, juvenile, bullying, child.
His obsession with stupid bully nicknames is just weird.
 
You definitely seem to be a glass half empty sort of guy. If I understand correctly you are a trans person. Do you not see how your rights and privileges have expanded in just ten years? How gay rights have expanded in the last twenty? Hell, we have a black woman who has an extremely great chance of becoming the next president.
I'm cis male in daily life. Gender freedom is something I only afford myself in online spaces. But I am struggling to comprehend the argument you are making, in any case. Would it make any difference if I started listing the numbers? On hate crimes? On poverty? On the hundreds of pieces of legislation that have been passed in the last ten years to restrict and discriminate against trans people in almost every area of life?

Yes, some advances have been made, mostly as a result of legal victories in a very different Supreme Court than the one we have now. And the proto-fascist Trump party is very, very angry about that fact. And the Court has changed. Am I just supposed to sit on my laurels, calmly trusting that Lawrence v Texas is not in danger of being overturned, when the Justices have stated in unambiguous terms that they wish to do exactly that?

And yes, you do seem to be making the perfect the enemy of the good.
This argument is fucking stupid. I think I'm just going to start blocking anyone who advances it from now on. Either respond to the substance of my post or not at all, this is getting fucking ridiculous.
 
The plan includes a major expansion in the child tax credit. Low- and middle-income families would get up to $6,000 when they have a new baby. And Harris said she wants to restore the pandemic-era program that gave families up to $3,600 per child.
The income limits for the Biden plan were very high. Hardly "low and middle income". I have not seen any indication that KH wants to dial down eligibility below six figures.
That helps avoid a lot of administrative bureaucracy to wade through and a lot of people falling through the cracks of such a system. But then again, some people seem to enjoy dealing with complicated administrative bureaucracies and avoiding such bureaucracy would be a great loss to them.
A bigger child tax credit has also been proposed by Republicans. Vice presidential candidate Sen. JD Vance said on Sunday that he would like to see it expanded to $5,000 per child.
He is just as wrong.
Great competition. :D
And those who suffer under it are us child-free taxpayers.
As a childless taxpayer, it doesn't bother me.
 
Also, how do you define "fascism"?

Fascism is a political trend that has appeared in mutliple societies over the past two centuries, manifesting as extreme nationalism and militarism tied to notions of racial, religious, and cultural superiority on the part of a single ruling party and figurehead leader, which comes to power by stoking fears of an externalized "other" within the state.
That definition would apply to other "isms" too. Such as communism.
 
Also, how do you define "fascism"?

Fascism is a political trend that has appeared in mutliple societies over the past two centuries, manifesting as extreme nationalism and militarism tied to notions of racial, religious, and cultural superiority on the part of a single ruling party and figurehead leader, which comes to power by stoking fears of an externalized "other" within the state.
That definition would apply to other "isms" too. Such as communism.
If we desire a dialectic context in which words have no specific meaning, sure.
 
Also, how do you define "fascism"?

Fascism is a political trend that has appeared in mutliple societies over the past two centuries, manifesting as extreme nationalism and militarism tied to notions of racial, religious, and cultural superiority on the part of a single ruling party and figurehead leader, which comes to power by stoking fears of an externalized "other" within the state.
That definition would apply to other "isms" too. Such as communism.
But let's make something clear. Communism wasn't intended as some sort of evil thing. It was a theory (a pipedream) about how to attain equity of resources among the people. This isn't a bad ideal. The trouble is, through experience, we learned government sucks at micromanaging business and industry and is not in a position to be able to manage such a system, which the USSR and China learned the hard way. The US learned easier because the small "utopian" societies that attempted to exist all collapsed in the US. But without the massive starving of tens of millions.

Regarding vocabulary, fascism is a word that has an adapting meaning these days. There is fascism fascism, which speaks to the political and economic foundation of it, and then there is fascism, a loosely referenced concept of the word which simply reflects tyrannical governance that generally holds at least one group of the population in low regard, and required violence to seize or maintain power.
 
The US has a foreign policy view of "those two are fighting each other, we must figure out which side are the good guys and support them, we must figure out which side are the bad guys and oppose them." It is a foolish policy.
"Good guys"? I think the question is which side winning (if any) works in our best interests, nationally or for the really wealthy with interests there.
When the good guys start doing bad things, they're no longer the good guys.

Sometimes there are no good guys.
Indeed... and sometimes a quagmire for an adversary is the goal. But sometimes a foot is put down too to keep things from going any further.
When the US says "we are sending support" it don't mean "medicine, taking in refugees, etc." The US means "we are sending you bullets and bombs".
Actually, it can mean all sorts of things. There is a very particular reason why the US and UN have not sent troops to Ukraine.
 
Back
Top Bottom