This weekly roundup thread is intended for all culture war posts. 'Culture war' is vaguely defined, but it basically means controversial issues that fall along set tribal lines. Arguments over culture war issues generate a lot of heat and little light, and few deeply entrenched people ever change their minds. This thread is for voicing opinions and analyzing the state of the discussion while trying to optimize for light over heat.
Optimistically, we think that engaging with people you disagree with is worth your time, and so is being nice! Pessimistically, there are many dynamics that can lead discussions on Culture War topics to become unproductive. There's a human tendency to divide along tribal lines, praising your ingroup and vilifying your outgroup - and if you think you find it easy to criticize your ingroup, then it may be that your outgroup is not who you think it is. Extremists with opposing positions can feed off each other, highlighting each other's worst points to justify their own angry rhetoric, which becomes in turn a new example of bad behavior for the other side to highlight.
We would like to avoid these negative dynamics. Accordingly, we ask that you do not use this thread for waging the Culture War. Examples of waging the Culture War:
-
Shaming.
-
Attempting to 'build consensus' or enforce ideological conformity.
-
Making sweeping generalizations to vilify a group you dislike.
-
Recruiting for a cause.
-
Posting links that could be summarized as 'Boo outgroup!' Basically, if your content is 'Can you believe what Those People did this week?' then you should either refrain from posting, or do some very patient work to contextualize and/or steel-man the relevant viewpoint.
In general, you should argue to understand, not to win. This thread is not territory to be claimed by one group or another; indeed, the aim is to have many different viewpoints represented here. Thus, we also ask that you follow some guidelines:
-
Speak plainly. Avoid sarcasm and mockery. When disagreeing with someone, state your objections explicitly.
-
Be as precise and charitable as you can. Don't paraphrase unflatteringly.
-
Don't imply that someone said something they did not say, even if you think it follows from what they said.
-
Write like everyone is reading and you want them to be included in the discussion.
On an ad hoc basis, the mods will try to compile a list of the best posts/comments from the previous week, posted in Quality Contribution threads and archived at /r/TheThread. You may nominate a comment for this list by clicking on 'report' at the bottom of the post and typing 'Actually a quality contribution' as the report reason.
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
Reports are he’s lost Barrack. It is now officially Joever.
Regarding whether he steps down from office or not, I doubt it. That would be a very dishonorable way to go out, but I do think there are conversations going on about whether Kamala has a better shot if she gets to run as an incumbent.
It's not really dishonorable if he's legitimately unwell. It would actually be clever to give Kamala a shot at being in front, helming any further debates, etc.
All she needs to do is get OUT the vote among women (and get traditionally uninspired young people to the polls). Hilary wasn't popular and she still beat Trump with the popular vote. Democrats aren't going to be turned off by Kamala, and undecideds that lean left will be reassured that she's not a doddering elder.
Dem voters hated her in the primary. Also the border is one of the major items this year and she was in charge of the Dems efforts. Also she is considered a known AA candidate.
Known bad candidate, but is she were to run without brakes? Could actually be powerful. In the primaries it's possible she tried to run as something or someone she's not, due to the competition and shape of the race. After all Trump did pretty well with a damn-the-torpedoes approach. I don't think she has it in her, but I wouldn't discount it entirely.
I reckon she'd have a decent shot if she went all in on a law-and-order message. That's pretty much her background but in 2020 Democrats were not keen to say things like "crime is bad" and that made her pretty rudderless.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
She is also a candidate able to campaign without stepping on her own feet (too much). If she's asked about abortion, she knows and is able to segue into Trump wanting raped 12 year olds to die giving birth. And, furthermore, she knows not to divert the question to the scourge of illegal immigrants rapists, which is... Not a topic Democrats should be focusing on.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Him not running, so basically admitting he's not mentally sharp anymore, but remaining in office brings really uncomfortable questions for the Democratic nominee to answer (provided someone with a microphone and some reach in the public asks them).
Like "If Joe is not in condition to run, do you believe he is capable of taking charge of the most demanding office on earth? If he's not, who's in charge? Do you support this? Why aren't you (or your party) invoking the 25th? Aren't you irresponsibly gambling with the nation that there won't be a sudden crisis that will demand the President to act quickly and decisively until inauguration? Don't you think that our adversaries might see the Commander-in-Chief being unfit as a unique window of opportunity?"
If the media won't ask these questions, you can be sure the Republican campaign advertising will. "Kamala/Gavin/Gretchen/whoever thinks it's fine that america be without competent leadership for months. Should you trust the judgement of someone who leaves Dementia Joe with control of the nuclear football?"
It's not admitting that he's not mentally sharp, just that he doesn't think he has another 4 years where he'll be as on top of things as he is now.
This. The whole point is not necessarily that he's in full and total decline right now, just that the decline has started and that the trajectory is very worrying. Like, he can probably cope with his current 10-4 workday just fine. But in 4 1/2 years at the end of a hypothetical second term, who's to say it won't be a 2 hour workday, or worse? With how sharp mental decline often is, the difference between 6 months from now and 54 months from now can be absolutely massive. Stepping down is just acknowledging that his 54-month prognosis isn't good enough or likely enough. We've seen signs of decline, with the benefit of some extra retrospect, for about 2ish years I'd say? I think that was when aides started to limit his interactions in some form, including with foreign leaders, if memory serves and recent reporting is accurate.
Man, writing it out like that, 54 months... holy cow. No way he would make it.
I'm sure if the Chinese decided to invade Taiwan they'll wait until those hours as a courtesy.
What would happen is they'd do it in the middle of the night, his aides would wake Biden up and he'd insist they put him on a call with Mao so he can talk him off this.
The question is, is it better to attack during night in China so Taiwan has a worse reaction time, or during night in USA so Biden has a worse reaction time.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Surely just the opposite? Being self-aware of one's own limitations, especially in a context where they sneak up on you like aging does or where they make it harder to be self-aware like cognitive problems can, is much more honorable than letting those limitations hit reality unchecked.
Self-aware would have been to drop out before the debate. Honorable would have been doing what he suggested and being a one-term President.
Nothing about dragging this out, making every Democrat an accomplice and then haranguing them (some of the leaks imply he's not just a stubborn man but a deeply rude one) for complaining that you'll drag the ticket down is sensible or honorable.
The Democratic party may agree to pretend that him stepping down now is some honorable act of service. But that's just a face-saving measure.
Depends how you spin it. As the proverb goes:
More options
Context Copy link
Just depends on the outcome now. If the Dems win both houses of Congress, or even somehow Kamala wins the presidency, then he goes down as an honorable hero who sacrificed to put the country first. If the Dems get wiped out, he's the villain who hung onto power too long, and couldn't hack it, and put them in this position.
I'd say Ds taking the Senate but Rs hold the house and Trump wins the presidency is the neutral gear, and also a quite likely outcome.
If Trump wins the WH, how do Dems win the senate? They are going to lose WV. They would lose the tie break. I don’t see Trump and a dem senate.
Current 270towin map at least has Republicans projected to get to 50, Democrats getting 48, and two states (OH and MT) as toss-ups. Since presidency is tiebreaker, I have to agree with your analysis here. The two least safe seats outside of that are Texas and Florida... yeah, no chance in hell that happens. That means even if they pick up both toss-ups and all their leaners, they still lose a tiebreaker if they lose the presidential race.
More options
Context Copy link
It's unlikely, but not impossible. Strange things happen. I'd probably also give Biden credit if they hold it to 50/50 and then win Vance's seat in the special election.
R Senate candidates have had it rough since Dobbs. Statewide in general. There's always the chance a pretty blonde teenage rape victim dies as a result of a problem pregnancy.
That hasn’t happened, though, the underaged girl denied an abortion by Ohio law was knocked up by her mother’s illegal immigrant boyfriend.
What hasn't happened? Rs have definitely lost winnable races since Dobbs.
And who knows why one case becomes famous and another fades into obscurity. Why are George Floyd and Michael Brown more well known than Philando Castile? It's a mystery, but it does happen.
But have R's lost winnable races due to abortion, or has it been nominating Dr. Oz for some reason?
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
Of course maybe the reports are designed to force Biden to drop out (ie make it sound like a fait accompli thereby making it fait accompli)
Yes, news of the reports are evidence that so far Biden has resisted dropping out.
Obama let it leak. Seems coordinated to me. The news reports are likely part of the pressure campaign
The existence of pressure campaign - especially public reeks of desperation of the anti biden crowd. So it means it is not decided.
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link
More options
Context Copy link