site banner
naraburns  nihil supernum  9d ago (text post)   26700 thread views

U.S. Election (Day?) 2024 Megathread

With apologies to our many friends and posters outside the United States... it's time for another one of these! Culture war thread rules apply, and you are permitted to openly advocate for or against an issue or candidate on the ballot (if you clearly identify which ballot, and can do so without knocking down any strawmen along the way). "Small-scale" questions and answers are also permitted if you refrain from shitposting or being otherwise insulting to others here. Please keep the spirit of the law--this is a discussion forum!--carefully in mind.

If you're a U.S. citizen with voting rights, your polling place can reportedly be located here.

If you're still researching issues, Ballotpedia is usually reasonably helpful.

Any other reasonably neutral election resources you'd like me to add to this notification, I'm happy to add.

15
Top Bottom Old Controversial Comments
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

You really have to grade Biden on a curve IMO. I'm sympathetic to him on COVID and Afghanistan, and while I don't agree with his handling of COVID, I can't say how I'd react when put into a similar position. Even more sympathetically, it's not clear to me how much he was really in control of the presidency. Is it really his fault that he got Weekend at Bernie'd into being president?

Even more sympathetically, it's not clear to me how much he was really in control of the presidency.

I am not sympathetic to this at all. If you are old and senile, you don't belong in a leadership position at... pretty much anything. The responsible thing to do is to retire and enjoy what remains of your health, and let younger people take charge. He knew his own mental state much sooner than anyone else did, and everyone knew approximately how much control he'd be in charge of his presidency when he was running for office in the first place. He should not have run, and by running he knowably made himself a figurehead and put his advisors in charge of the country in his stead. He shouldn't have done that, and the voters should not have voted for him knowing he would do that, but they did anyway, and that's largely his fault for enabling it.

He shouldn't have run, he did anyway, he deserves the blame for all the consequences of that.

Unfortunately, speaking from experience, people with dementia are often much, much less capable than others of recognizing that the deterioration of their selves.

It's odd to me how muted the public conversation is, though, on the corruption of Biden's inner circle in not pushing him out much earlier. I think people are approaching this wrong when they say "Biden staying in the race was bad for Kamala because it gave her less time to build a campaign". Biden staying in the race was bad for Kamala because it exposed to the public that the Emperor had no clothes, and she was the Emperor's second-in-command.

can't say how I'd react when put into a similar position

Would you have threatened the livelihood of 100,000,000 citizens unless they submitted to an unconstitutional mandate that abrogated their right to bodily autonomy? Even after massive concerns from multiple constitutional scholars?

If so, could you elaborate on that a little?

We're working with contrafactuals, but if I truly believed that the virus was an existential threat in the way it was sold as, I truly wouldn't know. For better or for worse, I'd see myself as responsible for the people who died. Like I said, I don't know what I'd do, but I can't imagine that it was a simple or easy choice.

Of course, this is all assuming that politicians actually want what's best for the country and are not a cabal of soul-sucking freaks.

I appreciate you taking the time to expand on your reasoning. Thank you.

existential threat

I mean, we had a pretty good idea what the IFR was by that point, so if someone bought this, I think it could only really come down to innumeracy.

A relatively small number of deaths can easily cause massive economic problems and overwhelm hospitals leading to all sorts of problems including...you guessed it, more deaths.

The problem wasn't the lockdowns. They were sensible. The problem was the way they were implemented and not having a reasonable offramp.

A relatively small number of deaths can easily cause massive economic problems and overwhelm hospitals leading to all sorts of problems including...you guessed it, more deaths.

If every hospital we have were suddenly carpet bombed tomorrow, would there be some increased follow-on deaths? Absolutely. Would it be an existential threat?! Please.

FYI, this subthread (from birb_cromble) seems to be referring to vaccine mandates rather than lockdowns.

I'm not saying it was truly an existential threat, but it was way worse than a lot of people are willing to acknowledge. What those numbers translate to practically is pretty bad. It's hard to notice if you were locked up though, which many were...so they didn't.

Well, the question is whether the President is in a position to know that wasn't an existential threat. If you're the President and ignorant people think it's an existential threat, but you know that it's not an existential threat, you help them understand that it's not an existential threat. And then we move to the next question of whether you would have "threatened the livelihood of 100,000,000 citizens unless they submitted to an unconstitutional mandate that abrogated their right to bodily autonomy? Even after massive concerns from multiple constitutional scholars?"

"Sufficiently damaging to the economy, American lives, and functioning of the government" isn't quite the same as "existential threat" and still justifies much of what happened.

More comments

What is this place?

This website is a place for people who want to move past shady thinking and test their ideas in a court of people who don't all share the same biases. Our goal is to optimize for light, not heat; this is a group effort, and all commentators are asked to do their part.

The weekly Culture War threads host the most controversial topics and are the most visible aspect of The Motte. However, many other topics are appropriate here. We encourage people to post anything related to science, politics, or philosophy; if in doubt, post!

Check out The Vault for an archive of old quality posts. You are encouraged to crosspost these elsewhere.


Why are you called The Motte?

A motte is a stone keep on a raised earthwork common in early medieval fortifications. More pertinently, it's an element in a rhetorical move called a "Motte-and-Bailey", originally identified by philosopher Nicholas Shackel. It describes the tendency in discourse for people to move from a controversial but high value claim to a defensible but less exciting one upon any resistance to the former. He likens this to the medieval fortification, where a desirable land (the bailey) is abandoned when in danger for the more easily defended motte. In Shackel's words, "The Motte represents the defensible but undesired propositions to which one retreats when hard pressed."

On The Motte, always attempt to remain inside your defensible territory, even if you are not being pressed.


New post guidelines

If you're posting something that isn't related to the culture war, we encourage you to post a thread for it. A submission statement is highly appreciated, but isn't necessary for text posts or links to largely-text posts such as blogs or news articles; if we're unsure of the value of your post, we might remove it until you add a submission statement. A submission statement is required for non-text sources (videos, podcasts, images).

Culture war posts go in the culture war thread; all links must either include a submission statement or significant commentary. Bare links without those will be removed.

If in doubt, please post it!


Rules


Recommended Posts And Communities

Recommended Realtime Chats