I see. Frankly I can't live my life with that level of pessimism, because if I adopt that sort of outlook then I'm very likely to sink much deeper into depression, something I've struggled with all my life. That sort of thinking genuinely leads me to hopelessness and suicidality.
You are making a lot of assumptions about me without really knowing anything about me. I would like to continue this discussion but I don't think it's worth it if you want to insist on being intellectually dishonest.
I do not consider myself a neoliberal. I spent 5 years of my life living and working on communes. I am, quite literally, a communist.
Okay. So, which one do you think we should vote for?
I guess I'm confused. Are you advocating for accelerationism regardless of the cost to human life?
That doesn't seem particularly at odds with what I said, but I guess I'm glad you've got it all figured out. I'm hoping your plans to change the system work out. Genuinely. If you have actionable, realistic, achievable ideas for removing the corrupting influence of money from the world at large, I'm all ears.
In the meantime I'll to continue to vote for whichever candidate (that stands a realistic chance at winning) I feel will do the least harm to the people I love and the institutions I begrudgingly tolerate.
I've already mentioned that I'm a moron, this should reinforce that.
I see. In that case, I think you may fundamentally misunderstand the world. You seem to want to frame it up as though there's some master plan or conspiracy, instead of a bunch of individuals working in hotly contested fields, just trying to keep their jobs by doing what they perceive as best at any given moment.
From my point of view Biden didn't have to lift a finger to expose Donald Trump as worse. Trump seemed happy to do that himself. But then, as I said, I'm a moron.
Stupid as I am, though, I don't have to lower myself to calling people "losers". I retired that word from my vocabulary when I graduated from elementary school.
We must have watched different debates, then. I saw one weak but curated personality, and one flawed human being. Maybe both of us are just incapable of seeing past our biases?
Is this... are you... Are you serious?
This is a ridiculous equivalence on its face, and you should feel ridiculous for saying it. A debate does not have a "winner" beyond that which any number of biased observers, such as yourself, attempt to assert. This is not baseball.
The winners in any debate, if there must be any, are the people who use what they see and hear to inform their voting choices. What, exactly, do you perceive DJT to have said and done on that stage that will convince supposed "undecided" voters to vote for him? What do you perceive Biden to have said or done that would make them decide that Mr. Trump is the better choice?
As you said:
“Undecided” voters fall into two categories:
Trump voter: “Iah aint tellin’ YEW who IAHM a-votin’ FER!”
Undecided voter trying to choose between voting and not voting.
Nobody is undecided between the candidates.
Were you yourself undecided? Or perhaps planning to vote for Biden prior to the debate, but now will vote for Trump instead? Given your analysis of undecided voters, I fail to see how the debate would have motivated the non-voters to go out and vote for a President Trump.
What I saw, personally, was two very old men who have wildly different takes on ethics and the seriousness of the position. One of which has a lot of practice being on camera. Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if Biden's performance at the debate was at least somewhat intentional, setting up a wonka-esque reversal for debate #2. Considering recency bias, along with the media's desperate need to turn everything into contentious clickbait, I think it would be a pretty brilliant tactic, even.
Of course, what do I know. I'm a moron. Much like your opinion, mine has very little value.
Given the available choices, and acknowledging the realities of game theory, the choice seems pretty obvious.
A rising tide lifts all boats.
This is some top tier mental gymnastics. Holy shit, I hope you're a troll. You're literally on the internet discussing your plans to commit fraud. Mensa-level shit, here.
People are going to buy CP one way or another... that means you should make it and sell it to them, right?
Grow the fuck up, and maybe train a LLM on ethics, you're going to need some education on the subject if you hope to stay out of prison.
We recommend four widely applicable high-impact (i.e. low emissions) actions with the potential to contribute to systemic change and substantially reduce annual personal emissions: having one fewer child (an average for developed countries of 58.6 tonnes CO2-equivalent (tCO2e) emission reductions per year), living car-free (2.4 tCO2e saved per year), avoiding airplane travel (1.6 tCO2e saved per roundtrip transatlantic flight) and eating a plant-based diet (0.8 tCO2e saved per year). These actions have much greater potential to reduce emissions than commonly promoted strategies like comprehensive recycling (four times less effective than a plant-based diet) or changing household lightbulbs (eight times less).
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541/pdf
I'm not sure about that, as I've seen conflicting information. Medicare has existed for around 60 years, and not only have patients been more satisfied with their care on average than people with private insurance, the costs have also been lower than private insurance overall. Couple those factors with metrics from the most recent study I was able to find on the cost of single payer, and the picture seems a bit muddier than you're presenting it.
We recommend four widely applicable high-impact (i.e. low emissions) actions with the potential to contribute to systemic change and substantially reduce annual personal emissions: having one fewer child (an average for developed countries of 58.6 tonnes CO2-equivalent (tCO2e) emission reductions per year), living car-free (2.4 tCO2e saved per year), avoiding airplane travel (1.6 tCO2e saved per roundtrip transatlantic flight) and eating a plant-based diet (0.8 tCO2e saved per year). These actions have much greater potential to reduce emissions than commonly promoted strategies like comprehensive recycling (four times less effective than a plant-based diet) or changing household lightbulbs (eight times less).
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7541/pdf
Okay, thank you. I wasn't sure. Why couldn't they just pay them 50k and lobby for single payer to save money? It seems like you're suggesting that they'd have to raise wages if single payer was implemented? Maybe I'm still confused, because it still seems like they'd save money in the long run?
