dagblog - Comments for "The Left Case Against Supporting Joe Biden in the General Election"

Yes, the irreparable changes

moat — Tue, 01 Sep 2020 16:01:54 +0000

Yes, the irreparable changes are the most important matters right now.

Studebaker frames the question correctly in regards to the danger of the moment. How much should the need to remove a national emergency be weighed against the compromises that requires? His argument suggests that our alarm at the damage is overwrought when compared to the dangers of the political developments he describes. I don't share is confidence that is the case.

By emergency, I don't mean to suggest that Trump could get away with a junta. The need to get him out of the office is existential for the immediate population. With so much of the country willing to vote for him, only a united effort will move him out.

I take your point about

moat — Tue, 01 Sep 2020 00:52:26 +0000

In reply to One can neither prove or

I take your point about decisions and developments that move the country to the right.
I am not clear about how that relates to positions like this article.

Thanks for clarifying your

rmrd0000 — Tue, 01 Sep 2020 00:38:34 +0000

In reply to It is not an absurd argument

Thanks for clarifying your position.

I suspect that there will be many anti-Trump votes.

One can neither prove or

ocean-kat — Tue, 01 Sep 2020 00:37:13 +0000

In reply to I don't know.

One can neither prove or disprove that another four years of Trump is an existential threat to democracy. One can only make arguments to support and defend one's position. The author has made what he thinks are good arguments that Trump is not. Some I agree with, some I don't. In general I don't think Trump is an existential threat to democracy. Mainly because he doesn't have sufficient support of the other institutions of government, the military, the FBI and CIA etc. This is one of the arguments the author made that I agree with

You can disagree with the arguments. Just don't claim the author hasn't made a good faith attempt to support his claim.

What the author doesn't support with good arguments is the idea that Trump may make irreparable changes to the law and society. For me that is the more important issue. For example the author down plays the important of the courts. Voting rights and abortion rights are being eroded and hang by a thread. There already is 5 votes to overturn Roe. Roberts is the fifth vote and only supports precedent because he's the chief justice. One more Trump justice and Roe is gone I think. And not just with 5 votes, Roberts will join the majority if there are 5 justices voting to over turn precedent

What he does very well is lay out the effects and problems with electing centrist or center right democrats. This has imo consistently moved the republicans, the democrats, and the whole government to the right. The republicans embrace their far right and play hard ball. The democrats compromise and this creates a new center. Each time a bit further right. As I pointed out in an earlier discussion, the democratic establishment and Biden consider Third Way to be a center left organization. The democratic establishment position is now that the center is to the right of Third Way. That will affect what Biden fights for and what he'll consider an acceptable centrist compromise. That's a big problem for me when I consider Third Way to be a center right organization

It is not an absurd argument

A Guy Called LULU — Tue, 01 Sep 2020 00:18:50 +0000

In reply to it's an absurd argument like

It is not an absurd argument at all, IMO. I believe it accurately outlines why a great many people are getting fed up and see their grievances as reason not to vote for Biden. Where I part ways with Studebaker is that I believe that we cannot take a chance on Trump even if the same-o same-o is our only alternative. As I have said here several times, I am scared enough of Trump and I despise him so much that I will vote for Biden too.

I haven't been following your

rmrd0000 — Tue, 01 Sep 2020 00:12:25 +0000

In reply to That question, in relation to

I haven't been following your discussions in detail.

That question, in relation to

A Guy Called LULU — Tue, 01 Sep 2020 00:07:56 +0000

In reply to You see no difference between

That question, in relation to the article and what I have said about it, reduces the entire subject to such simplistic terms that it could only be asked seriously by a seriously simple minded person.

I do not see the quoted

A Guy Called LULU — Tue, 01 Sep 2020 00:04:57 +0000

In reply to I don't know.

I do not see the quoted statement as an argument supporting a position but rather a position which he supports with arguments. But yes, this is an opinion piece and even many well supported opinions cannot be proven.

I don't know.

moat — Mon, 31 Aug 2020 23:56:16 +0000

In reply to Maybe that claim deserves

I don't know.
There is this:
"Trump hasn’t tried to hold a sham election–he’s tried to delay one that’s free and fair, because he knows that if he loses he won’t be able to ignore the result."
Is that really an argument supporting a position or just another way to assume what cannot be proved? I don't share the confidence the author is experiencing.

Maybe that claim deserves

ocean-kat — Mon, 31 Aug 2020 23:45:10 +0000

In reply to The article starts with this

Maybe that claim deserves more support than declaring it as a fact.

In the second half of the article the author uses several paragraphs to support the claim. You may disagree with the arguments but he does much more than just declare it.