The 2024 Presidential Debate Thread

[DCHawk1]

I assumed as much.

[Shirley]

This should settle it:

[Sparko]

Yow. Egg prices and climate hoax. All Biden's fault. Pretty nice lazy grift if you can get it.

[Overlander]

Yow. Egg prices and climate hoax. All Biden's fault. Pretty nice lazy grift if you can get it.

As I see it, low volume output shower heads will indeed be the end of mankind as we know it

[RainbowsandUnicorns]

This should settle it:

My bro in law graduated from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute. He had a graduate degree from MIT. His studies focused on the environment and engineering. He was a smart man who had a career as an environmental engineer (among other things) and his knowledge and expertise helped the city of Washington DC and our country. He advised the city of Washington DC and the federal government on climate change. He said climate change is legit.

Larry Kudlow had a career in "finance". He says climate change is a hoax.

Which brings me to USA 2023 in a nutshell.....

I'm confident if you told 500 random Democrats about my bro in law and his education and experience and that my bro in law said climate change is legit and Larry Kudlow says climate change is a hoax -
The majority of Democrats would agree with my bro in law.

I'm confident if you told 500 random Republicans about my bro in law and his education and experience and that my bro in law said climate change is legit and Larry Kudlow says climate change is a hoax - The majority of Republicans would agree with Kudlow.

[DCHawk1]

I assume everyone understands the difference between what Vivek said and what Kudlow said?

Vivek is too clever by half and Kudlow is...well...not.

[DCHawk1]

And mark my words, Vivek is eagerly anticipating a reporter asking him the "right" question.

"You said climate change is a 'hoax.' Can you tell me...."

"Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait...I did NOT say climate change is a hoax. But let me tell you what IS a hoax...."

Too clever by half.

[japhy]

This should settle it:

Tax cuts, finally something we can all agree on!

How about another round of tax cuts for me? Sure the PPP money was a nice boost and it pushed my retirement forward a bit and allowed for a bit more opulence in the third residence, but seriously, I could use another tax cut.

On the plus side I did just file my taxes for last year and my accountant got me a $54K refund from the Feds which is my biggest refund to date, but would it have hurt anyone if that number went to six figures?

I think not.

Come on people, let's put our heads together and find me some more tax cuts! It's not that I don't appreciate what you have given me so far. I am very appreciative, I mean I even cooked dinner for some of you in the Empire a month ago. How about everyone pitch in and pay a bit more in taxes or cut back on your services just a bit to get me over that hump. I think it is the patriotic thing to do.

[japhy]

I assume everyone understands the difference between what Vivek said and what Kudlow said?

Vivek is too clever by half and Kudlow is...well...not.

Isn't this the problem with having any serious discussion of climate change and effects/mitigation, the attempts to be "too clever"?

You can argue who started the polarization and making the "side" of "hoax-not hoax" you are on a political litmus test, but in the end if you really believe we are talking about something that will lead to mass migration and mass population die off, it is pretty cynical to play the "too clever" game for short term political gains. I think a lot more politicians think it is real than will admit it. But they play the "too clever" game because it is the staked out territory of a constituency they are courting.

[Sparko]

And it should be said: we are all hostage to big oil. And more so if we dissemble on its behalf. QED. Bought and paid for is exactly what VGR is too.

[jfish26]

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.

Look, you don't dip a Is This A Culture Wars Thing??? stick in the thread and see whether a plus or minus sign shows.

But I think the direction you want to take the discussion is pretty empty, pretty breezy. It very clearly is pointed toward a landing spot that there's no such thing as truth or lie, fact or fiction, right or wrong. And I think that's a shitty landing spot.

[DCHawk1]

I assume everyone understands the difference between what Vivek said and what Kudlow said?

Vivek is too clever by half and Kudlow is...well...not.

Isn't this the problem with having any serious discussion of climate change and effects/mitigation, the attempts to be "too clever"?

You can argue who started the polarization and making the "side" of "hoax-not hoax" you are on a political litmus test, but in the end if you really believe we are talking about something that will lead to mass migration and mass population die off, it is pretty cynical to play the "too clever" game for short term political gains. I think a lot more politicians think it is real than will admit it. But they play the "too clever" game because it is the staked out territory of a constituency they are courting.

yes?

"Too clever by half" is not a compliment.

[DCHawk1]

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.

Look, you don't dip a Is This A Culture Wars Thing??? stick in the thread and see whether a plus or minus sign shows.

But I think the direction you want to take the discussion is pretty empty, pretty breezy. It very clearly is pointed toward a landing spot that there's no such thing as truth or lie, fact or fiction, right or wrong. And I think that's a shitty landing spot.

I'm not steering the discussion anywhere. I'm merely acknowledging ideological reality.

And yes, it is exceptionally nihilistic. But that's hardly on me. I didn't make the rules. I'm merely acknowledging them.

[jfish26]

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.

Look, you don't dip a Is This A Culture Wars Thing??? stick in the thread and see whether a plus or minus sign shows.

But I think the direction you want to take the discussion is pretty empty, pretty breezy. It very clearly is pointed toward a landing spot that there's no such thing as truth or lie, fact or fiction, right or wrong. And I think that's a shitty landing spot.

I'm not steering the discussion anywhere. I'm merely acknowledging ideological reality.

And yes, it is exceptionally nihilistic. But that's hardly on me. I didn't make the rules. I'm merely acknowledging them.

Ok. I don’t accept, for example, that there’s anything to debate about whether human-caused climate change is real. Accordingly, to say it’s a culture wars issue - to say that the “ideological reality” is that it’s a culture wars issue - is a fancy way of saying that “that’s your opinion” is a worthwhile response to a fact that someone doesn’t want to be a fact.

[DCHawk1]

Ok. I don’t accept, for example, that there’s anything to debate about whether human-caused climate change is real. Accordingly, to say it’s a culture wars issue - to say that the “ideological reality” is that it’s a culture wars issue - is a fancy way of saying that “that’s your opinion” is a worthwhile response to a fact that someone doesn’t want to be a fact.

The issue itself -- i.e. the climate is warming and man is responsible for it -- may, indeed, be apolitical.

But that is the only part of the discussion that is.

Everything else -- the extent of the warming; the impact of the warming; the most effective response to the warming; the tradeoffs, costs, and benefits of any proposed response; the likelihood of success; etc. -- is political and largely driven by culture-heavy ideology.

[jfish26]

Ok. I don’t accept, for example, that there’s anything to debate about whether human-caused climate change is real. Accordingly, to say it’s a culture wars issue - to say that the “ideological reality” is that it’s a culture wars issue - is a fancy way of saying that “that’s your opinion” is a worthwhile response to a fact that someone doesn’t want to be a fact.

The issue itself -- i.e. the climate is warming and man is responsible for it -- may, indeed, be apolitical.

But that is the only part of the discussion that is.

Everything else -- the extent of the warming; the impact of the warming; the most effective response to the warming; the tradeoffs, costs, and benefits of any proposed response; the likelihood of success; etc. -- is political and largely driven by culture-heavy ideology.

I agree with that. But table stakes must be accepting that human-caused climate change is real. Your opinions on what to do about climate change should have ZERO weight if you do not believe human-caused climate change is real.

There are similar lines of demarcation for all of these issues, and I’m happy to explain what I think those are.

In other words, the “culture wars” aspect is (generally) more in the “why” and “how”. Not the “what”.

[Shirley]

And mark my words, Vivek is eagerly anticipating a reporter asking him the "right" question.

"You said climate change is a 'hoax.' Can you tell me...."

"Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait...I did NOT say climate change is a hoax. But let me tell you what IS a hoax...."

Too clever by half.

DC's right, Vivek said the "the climate change agenda is a hoax".

Vivek knows that the future, the younger demographic, considers climate change a more important problem than the older demographic. (Although, thankfully, not by much. Plus, the rate of it becoming more important across age demographics is increasing at the same rate*.)

Vivek and DC know that decade after decade after decade of republicans denying Global Warming is even a thing, in service to their benefactors, day after day after day of ever-increasing all-time high temperature records along with what can seem like nearly half of N. America on fire at times this summer, makes the argument about the very existence of climate change harder and harder to make, even to their cult.

When the facts are on your side, argue the facts.

The "facts" are not on their side so like Vivek during the debate, yesterday DC invited us to participate in a discussion about the process. It's not that the "process" doesn't need a nearly infinite amount of discussion, or that I/we wouldn't likely learn a lot from it, especially since we've never been here before, but by cynically contesting the "facts" for so many decades in service to the extraction industries, et al, seamlessly segueing now to a likely never-ending discussion about "process" while the polar ice caps continue to melt and climate refugees continue to increase globally, might strike a reasonable person as being a little rich.


*4/5/23 Gen Z and Millennials (60%)1 are more likely to be either Alarmed or Concerned about global warming than Gen X (53%), or Baby Boomers and older generations (53%). Gen Z and Millennials (16%) are also less likely to be either Doubtful or Dismissive than Gen X (21%), or Baby Boomers and older generations (25%).

[jfish26]

And mark my words, Vivek is eagerly anticipating a reporter asking him the "right" question.

"You said climate change is a 'hoax.' Can you tell me...."

"Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait...I did NOT say climate change is a hoax. But let me tell you what IS a hoax...."

Too clever by half.

DC's right, Vivek said the "the climate change agenda is a hoax".

Vivek knows that the future, the younger demographic, considers climate change a more important problem than the older demographic. (Although, thankfully, not by much. Plus, the rate of it becoming more important across age demographics is increasing at the same rate*.)

Vivek and DC know that decade after decade after decade of republicans denying Global Warming is even a thing, in service to their benefactors, day after day after day of ever-increasing all-time high temperature records along with what can seem like nearly half of N. America on fire at times this summer, makes the argument about the very existence of climate change harder and harder to make, even to their cult.

When the facts are on your side, argue the facts.

The "facts" are not on their side so like Vivek during the debate, yesterday DC invited us to participate in a discussion about the process. It's not that the "process" doesn't need a nearly infinite amount of discussion, or that I/we wouldn't likely learn a lot from it, especially since we've never been here before, but by cynically contesting the "facts" for so many decades in service to the extraction industries, et al, seamlessly segueing now to a likely never-ending discussion about "process" while the polar ice caps continue to melt and climate refugees continue to increase globally, might strike a reasonable person as being a little rich.


*4/5/23 Gen Z and Millennials (60%)1 are more likely to be either Alarmed or Concerned about global warming than Gen X (53%), or Baby Boomers and older generations (53%). Gen Z and Millennials (16%) are also less likely to be either Doubtful or Dismissive than Gen X (21%), or Baby Boomers and older generations (25%).

Let’s use this as another waypoint on Vivek.

His language - that the agenda is a hoax, but not the issue itself - was super, super intentional. Just like the “mental health” discussion yesterday, Vivek is letting people hear what they want to hear. Someone who thinks human-caused climate change is a hoax, can hear Vivek say that.

So, what he said isn’t dishonest. But it very much is knowingly vague.

He’s great with words. Accordingly, he should be held to account for precisely what he says, and how, and why.

[KUTradition]

would you consider what he said to be deceptive/deceitful?

[Shirley]

Let’s use this as another waypoint on Vivek.

His language - that the agenda is a hoax, but not the issue itself - was super, super intentional. Just like the “mental health” discussion yesterday, Vivek is letting people hear what they want to hear. Someone who thinks human-caused climate change is a hoax, can hear Vivek say that.

So, what he said isn’t dishonest. But it very much is knowingly vague.

He’s great with words. Accordingly, he should be held to account for precisely what he says, and how, and why.

"Vague" suits them well since they have so few principles. Plausible deniability:
That's not what I, (the law), meant!"

Like the ant-abortion laws that have been enacted in red states where patients, their physicians, and lawyers are all purposefully left to guess what is and isn't allowed, and are forced to avoid crossing uncertain lines. So, they do much, much less than might have done otherwise to avoid the government, the STATE, punishing them, which hypocritical republicans used to pretend they were against.

The unrelenting Bad Faith is exhausting, which is, of course, their goal.