The 2024 Presidential Debate Thread

[DCHawk1]

well, when you don’t really have any content in your platform…

LOL.

Tell me again about how adopting the tenets of your faith into an "all of government" approach is substantive and NOT a part of the culture wars....

[DCHawk1]

as someone who voted R in just about every election until 2016...it sure seems like the options here are (1) recalibrate AWAY from culture wars, or (2) die (and accept an outcome where it's the DNC that breaks into two, which will pull EVERYTHING to the left).

And the party does not seem ready to accept #1.

With a few minor modifications to your thesis and your biography (e.g. Mission Hills, Shawnee Mission East, only 1 year at KU, etc.), I might think you were Thomas Frank.

[KUTradition]

well, when you don’t really have any content in your platform…

LOL.

Tell me again about how adopting the tenets of your faith into an "all of government" approach is substantive and NOT a part of the culture wars....

wut?

[jfish26]

Culture wars are all there is -- and all there has been since about...1968.

That none of you recognizes that the "Left" (such as it is) is ALL about culture wars and, indeed, was the original ideology of the culture warrior is interesting but not especially unsurprising.

That and $137 will buy you the history textbook explaining that to those who are behind the curve here. Will it go back to the Civil War era? Or at least Reconstruction?

I don't think there is a serious case to be made that both parties, as respecting the 2024 general (being the subject matter of this thread), are both equally culture-war-driven. Or, put differently, I don't think there is a serious case to be made that both parties are equally serious about actual policy issues.

[DCHawk1]

well, when you don’t really have any content in your platform…

LOL.

Tell me again about how adopting the tenets of your faith into an "all of government" approach is substantive and NOT a part of the culture wars....

wut?

Exactly.

[KUTradition]

LOL.

Tell me again about how adopting the tenets of your faith into an "all of government" approach is substantive and NOT a part of the culture wars....

wut?

Exactly.

good Gaia…are you (again) trying to label science as a religion?

did you forget about that little thing called faith?

[DCHawk1]

Culture wars are all there is -- and all there has been since about...1968.

That none of you recognizes that the "Left" (such as it is) is ALL about culture wars and, indeed, was the original ideology of the culture warrior is interesting but not especially unsurprising.

That and $137 will buy you the history textbook explaining that to those who are behind the curve here. Will it go back to the Civil War era? Or at least Reconstruction?

I don't think there is a serious case to be made that both parties, as respecting the 2024 general (being the subject matter of this thread), are both equally culture-war-driven. Or, put differently, I don't think there is a serious case to be made that both parties are equally serious about actual policy issues.

It goes back to just after the Civil War-era. And it's still relevant. And I disagree with you wholeheartedly. There is nothing but culture wars.

[DCHawk1]

wut?

Exactly.

good Gaia…are you (again) trying to label science as a religion?

did you forget about that little thing called faith?

LOL. Look at you trying to rationalize faith-based solutions to marginally understood phenomena as "science" and then wondering why I think you're a Gnostic twit.

[jfish26]

Culture wars are all there is -- and all there has been since about...1968.

That none of you recognizes that the "Left" (such as it is) is ALL about culture wars and, indeed, was the original ideology of the culture warrior is interesting but not especially unsurprising.

That and $137 will buy you the history textbook explaining that to those who are behind the curve here. Will it go back to the Civil War era? Or at least Reconstruction?

I don't think there is a serious case to be made that both parties, as respecting the 2024 general (being the subject matter of this thread), are both equally culture-war-driven. Or, put differently, I don't think there is a serious case to be made that both parties are equally serious about actual policy issues.

It actually goes back to just after the Civil War. And yes, it's still relevant. And I disagree with you wholeheartedly. There is nothing but culture wars.

Ok. If it helps we could stop using the phrase "culture wars".

First, I'm for candidates who support and defend democracy and democratic process.

Next, I'm for candidates who support and defend equal rights, and reasonable gun laws.

Next, I'm for candidates who believe in human-caused climate change and want to act NOW to mitigate the harm we've done and lessen the harm we'll do.

Finally, I'll figure out what's left.

As far as I can tell, there won't be room to support pubs again for a very long while. And I don't want that. I want to have a real choice. But I don't, now, and I don't anticipate having one any time soon.

[KUTradition]

Exactly.

good Gaia…are you (again) trying to label science as a religion?

did you forget about that little thing called faith?

LOL. Look at you trying to rationalize faith-based solutions to marginally understood phenomena as "science" and then wondering why I think you're a Gnostic twit.

keep swinging, bub

[KUTradition]

50 years ago i would have agreed with you, DC, that we only had a marginal understanding of climate science

that’s hardly the case today

(even with that limited understanding, there were plenty of predictions made by the fossil fuel companies’ own scientists that are now coming to fruition)

but, you’re a smart guy; you know this…so spare me the tired right-wing taking points

[DCHawk1]

That and $137 will buy you the history textbook explaining that to those who are behind the curve here. Will it go back to the Civil War era? Or at least Reconstruction?

I don't think there is a serious case to be made that both parties, as respecting the 2024 general (being the subject matter of this thread), are both equally culture-war-driven. Or, put differently, I don't think there is a serious case to be made that both parties are equally serious about actual policy issues.

It actually goes back to just after the Civil War. And yes, it's still relevant. And I disagree with you wholeheartedly. There is nothing but culture wars.

Ok. If it helps we could stop using the phrase "culture wars".

First, I'm for candidates who support and defend democracy and democratic process.

Next, I'm for candidates who support and defend equal rights, and reasonable gun laws.

Next, I'm for candidates who believe in human-caused climate change and want to act NOW to mitigate the harm we've done and lessen the harm we'll do.

Finally, I'll figure out what's left.

As far as I can tell, there won't be room to support pubs again for a very long while. And I don't want that. I want to have a real choice. But I don't, now, and I don't anticipate having one any time soon.

That's fine.

But most of that is cultural -- not economic and not basic public policy.

You're cultural warrior -- just on the other side from where you started.

[DCHawk1]

50 years ago i would have agreed with you, DC, that we only had a marginal understanding of climate science

that’s hardly the case today

(even with that limited understanding, there were plenty of predictions made by the fossil fuel companies’ own scientists that are now coming to fruition)

but, you’re a smart guy; you know this…so spare me the tired right-wing taking points

When you are willing to address the ongoing failures in predictive modeling, the IPCC's differing scenarios (and politicians' gravitation to the worst of those), Jim Skea's pleas for environmental scientists to quit catastrophising the issue, the unfeasibility of all current solutions, the human costs of deindustrialization, the untoward and potentially dangerous power shifts necessary to realize even a fraction of decarbonization, and the ongoing behavioral misfeasance of the loudest advocates for behavior modification, then we can address the political perversion of the concept of science and the abandonment of falsifiability as a key determinant in what differentiates science from scientism.

Until then...it's all faith-based.

[DCHawk1]

So...although I'm addressing this to trad, anyone and everyone should feel to chime in.

Let me preface that this is meant only as a litmus test, not a reflection of my thoughts on the guy. But...

How do you feel about Bjorn Lomborg?

[KUTradition]

i don’t feel anything about him

i think some of his ideas and positions are absolutely misguided, most notably that we can R&D our way out of the climate issue without making substantive changes to our patterns of consumption

[KUTradition]

50 years ago i would have agreed with you, DC, that we only had a marginal understanding of climate science

that’s hardly the case today

(even with that limited understanding, there were plenty of predictions made by the fossil fuel companies’ own scientists that are now coming to fruition)

but, you’re a smart guy; you know this…so spare me the tired right-wing taking points

When you are willing to address the ongoing failures in predictive modeling, the IPCC's differing scenarios (and politicians' gravitation to the worst of those), Jim Skea's pleas for environmental scientists to quit catastrophising the issue, the unfeasibility of all current solutions, the human costs of deindustrialization, the untoward and potentially dangerous power shifts necessary to realize even a fraction of decarbonization, and the ongoing behavioral misfeasance of the loudest advocates for behavior modification, then we can address the political perversion of the concept of science and the abandonment of falsifiability as a key determinant in what differentiates science from scientism.

Until then...it's all faith-based.

lulz…you’re eloquent, i’ll give you that

[KUTradition]

if you get bitten by a rattlesnake, are you going to refuse antivenom because the science can’t predict with 100% confidence what the exact clinical outcome is going to be, or how many vials they might have to administer, or how many other adjunctive treatments they might need, or what the cost of treatment is?

[DCHawk1]

i don’t feel anything about him

i think some of his ideas and positions are absolutely misguided, most notably that we can R&D our way out of the climate issue without making substantive changes to our patterns of consumption

Fair enough.

Separately, I think it's interesting that you went right to "consumption."

[DCHawk1]

if you get bitten by a rattlesnake, are you going to refuse antivenom because the science can’t predict with 100% confidence what the exact clinical outcome is going to be, or how many vials they might have to administer, or how many other adjunctive treatments they might need, or what the cost of treatment is?

No.

But then, that's a terrible analogy.

[KUTradition]

i disagree