4 ms·

What do you want me to say? You didn't provide a reference, you just proclaimed that I was wrong. Fine, you're right, I was wrong. It is not the vast majorit

by lisper 3y ago

What do you want me to say? You didn't provide a reference, you just proclaimed that I was wrong. Fine, you're right, I was wrong. It is not the vast majority that are chains, it's just a lot of them. (Apparently your Multiple Philosophy Degrees didn't equip you to recognize non-sequiturs either.) And, to go back to my original point which is apparently too difficult for you to grasp, I am not overlooking "corruption". I am simply observing that what you call "corruption" is ubiquitous, mostly legal, and necessary for anyone who wants to advance in politics under our current system. That is simply a fact. You cannot succeed in politics without shmoozing donors. You can call that "corruption" if you want, but I'm not interested in quibbling over terminology. I'm also not interested in having a discussion with someone who thinks that having Multiple Philosophy Degrees actually matters. Ben Carson has an M.D. but he's still a blithering idiot. Ted Kazinsky had a Ph.D. but he was still a psychopath. I see your Multiple Phislosophy Degrees and raise you my Ph.D. in computer science -- and them I'm folding my hand because this is not a game I am interested in playing.

lapcat 3y ago
I'm obviously failing once again to quit the discussion... > I'm also not interested in having a discussion with someone who thinks that having Multiple Philosophy Degrees actually matters. I mentioned them only in response to one claim of yours, already about twenty levels deep into the debate: > Have you considered the possibility that you don't read very carefully? Otherwise, I didn't try to cite them to support any other point of mine. > necessary for anyone who wants to advance in politics under our current system Why should we as citizens care about the advancement of individual politicians? Their job is supposed to be to represent us. If the winners of elections cater to their donors rather than to their constituents, if the representatives, at the behest of their donors, purposely prevent progress that would help the majority of people, then what good is winning? My argument was that it's the moral corruption of the political parties, especially their leaders, that makes it necessary for party officials to be corrupt, e.g., "if you want to be part of one of the two major parties, who are already corrupted by money, you've got to play along with the team, join the perverse game. Otherwise they'll crush you like a bug. Perhaps you could make some excuses for the minor party politicians, but there are no excuses for the leaders of the parties. They're the ringleaders of the whole corrupt operation." There doesn't even appear to be a desire among most politicians to change this sad situation. Also: "I don't actually think that money in politics corrupts politicians as much as politics appeals to the corruptible, i.e., the type of ladder-climber that I mentioned. It's possible to be courageous (i.e., not corrupt) in politics, as long as you care more about your principles than you do about election and especially reelection." Let me make a little analogy. Instead of talking about the US government, let's talk about the government of a totalitarian country. Take your pick: China, Russia, North Korea, etc. It's "simply a fact", as you say, that in order to advance to a high position in the government of such a country, it's necessary for a politician to be terrible, ruthless, evil, even murderous. We can admit that as a fact. But this terrible fact doesn't excuse the behavior. Not in the least. It's still inherently wrong to be terrible, ruthless, evil, murderous. There's simply no excuse. A moral person would play no role in that villainy. And I would say the same thing about corruption in US politics. I'm not trying to argue that you shouldn't vote for Biden, or even that you shouldn't donate to him, but at least we should call a spade a spade. It's simply admitting the truth, which is much more important than politics IMO. The truth only seems to come out of his lips when talking to his donors, promising "Nothing fundamentally would change" if he was elected. And he kept that promise! https://www.salon.com/2019/06/19/joe-biden-to-rich-donors-nothing-would-fundamentally-change-if-hes-elected/ https://www.salon.com/2019/06/19/joe-biden-to-rich-donors-no... This is and always has been who Biden is, fundamentally. You seem to want to defend him as a victim of "necessity", whereas I see him merely as an ambitious, corrupt ladder-climber with no real principles, and one of the worst of all the Democratic candidates in 2020. It wasn't actually necessary for Biden to run, and remember that he was forced to drop out of a previous Presidential run because of his dishonesty.
- lisper 3y ago
  > I'm obviously failing once again to quit the discussion... Welcome to my world. > Why should we as citizens care about the advancement of individual politicians? Another non-sequitur. Your penchant for going off on tangents is one of the reasons I don't want to engage with you any more. But just for the record: I'm not making any value judgements here, just a factual claim: politicians in the U.S. spend a lot of time fundraising, and they do this not necessarily because of any moral failing but simply because it's a prerequisite for keeping their jobs. If you accept that, then we can go on to have a discussion about whether or not this state of affairs is desirable, and, if not, why it's undesirable what might be done about it. But that is a different topic, and it is important to keep a clean separation between the two.
  - lapcat 3y ago
    > Your penchant for going off on tangents is one of the reasons I don't want to engage with you any more. I already said (2 days ago), "I agree that I was following a bit of a tangent", since the submitted article was about political advertising on Twitter/X. However, it's been the same tangent the whole time: "Serious question: Do you honestly believe that Joe Biden is not corrupt? As far as I've seen, which is a lot, he's been a paid tool of the Delaware financial industry for his entire career." > politicians in the U.S. spend a lot of time fundraising, and they do this not necessarily because of any moral failing but simply because it's a prerequisite for keeping their jobs. > If you accept that I already accepted that long ago in the discussion: "You certainly have to raise money to win, but there are different ways of going about that, and also different ways to handle it after you've raised the funds and won the election." "Of course every politician raises campaign funds, an empirical fact beyond dispute." "I wasn't talking about the fact that Joe Biden has raised campaign funds; by itself, that's not interesting or worth noting." > then we can go on to have a discussion about whether or not this state of affairs is desirable, and, if not, why it's undesirable what might be done about it. That wasn't ever the question, I was never trying to debate that with you, and I'm not sure we would even disagree about the answer. My question has always been very specific: "Do you honestly believe that Joe Biden is not corrupt?" I assume that, like other politicians, Biden spends a lot of time fundraising, so we can take that for granted. Time spent fundraising is not the question. I'm more interested in what Biden does when he's not fundraising, i.e., when he's supposed to be doing the job he was elected for.

by lisper 3y ago

lapcat 3y ago

I'm obviously failing once again to quit the discussion... > I'm also not interested in having a discussion with someone who thinks that having Multiple Philosophy Degrees actually matters. I mentioned them only in response to one claim of yours, already about twenty levels deep into the debate: > Have you considered the possibility that you don't read very carefully? Otherwise, I didn't try to cite them to support any other point of mine. > necessary for anyone who wants to advance in politics under our current system Why should we as citizens care about the advancement of individual politicians? Their job is supposed to be to represent us. If the winners of elections cater to their donors rather than to their constituents, if the representatives, at the behest of their donors, purposely prevent progress that would help the majority of people, then what good is winning? My argument was that it's the moral corruption of the political parties, especially their leaders, that makes it necessary for party officials to be corrupt, e.g., "if you want to be part of one of the two major parties, who are already corrupted by money, you've got to play along with the team, join the perverse game. Otherwise they'll crush you like a bug. Perhaps you could make some excuses for the minor party politicians, but there are no excuses for the leaders of the parties. They're the ringleaders of the whole corrupt operation." There doesn't even appear to be a desire among most politicians to change this sad situation. Also: "I don't actually think that money in politics corrupts politicians as much as politics appeals to the corruptible, i.e., the type of ladder-climber that I mentioned. It's possible to be courageous (i.e., not corrupt) in politics, as long as you care more about your principles than you do about election and especially reelection." Let me make a little analogy. Instead of talking about the US government, let's talk about the government of a totalitarian country. Take your pick: China, Russia, North Korea, etc. It's "simply a fact", as you say, that in order to advance to a high position in the government of such a country, it's necessary for a politician to be terrible, ruthless, evil, even murderous. We can admit that as a fact. But this terrible fact doesn't excuse the behavior. Not in the least. It's still inherently wrong to be terrible, ruthless, evil, murderous. There's simply no excuse. A moral person would play no role in that villainy. And I would say the same thing about corruption in US politics. I'm not trying to argue that you shouldn't vote for Biden, or even that you shouldn't donate to him, but at least we should call a spade a spade. It's simply admitting the truth, which is much more important than politics IMO. The truth only seems to come out of his lips when talking to his donors, promising "Nothing fundamentally would change" if he was elected. And he kept that promise! https://www.salon.com/2019/06/19/joe-biden-to-rich-donors-nothing-would-fundamentally-change-if-hes-elected/ https://www.salon.com/2019/06/19/joe-biden-to-rich-donors-no... This is and always has been who Biden is, fundamentally. You seem to want to defend him as a victim of "necessity", whereas I see him merely as an ambitious, corrupt ladder-climber with no real principles, and one of the worst of all the Democratic candidates in 2020. It wasn't actually necessary for Biden to run, and remember that he was forced to drop out of a previous Presidential run because of his dishonesty.

lisper 3y ago
> I'm obviously failing once again to quit the discussion... Welcome to my world. > Why should we as citizens care about the advancement of individual politicians? Another non-sequitur. Your penchant for going off on tangents is one of the reasons I don't want to engage with you any more. But just for the record: I'm not making any value judgements here, just a factual claim: politicians in the U.S. spend a lot of time fundraising, and they do this not necessarily because of any moral failing but simply because it's a prerequisite for keeping their jobs. If you accept that, then we can go on to have a discussion about whether or not this state of affairs is desirable, and, if not, why it's undesirable what might be done about it. But that is a different topic, and it is important to keep a clean separation between the two.
- lapcat 3y ago
  > Your penchant for going off on tangents is one of the reasons I don't want to engage with you any more. I already said (2 days ago), "I agree that I was following a bit of a tangent", since the submitted article was about political advertising on Twitter/X. However, it's been the same tangent the whole time: "Serious question: Do you honestly believe that Joe Biden is not corrupt? As far as I've seen, which is a lot, he's been a paid tool of the Delaware financial industry for his entire career." > politicians in the U.S. spend a lot of time fundraising, and they do this not necessarily because of any moral failing but simply because it's a prerequisite for keeping their jobs. > If you accept that I already accepted that long ago in the discussion: "You certainly have to raise money to win, but there are different ways of going about that, and also different ways to handle it after you've raised the funds and won the election." "Of course every politician raises campaign funds, an empirical fact beyond dispute." "I wasn't talking about the fact that Joe Biden has raised campaign funds; by itself, that's not interesting or worth noting." > then we can go on to have a discussion about whether or not this state of affairs is desirable, and, if not, why it's undesirable what might be done about it. That wasn't ever the question, I was never trying to debate that with you, and I'm not sure we would even disagree about the answer. My question has always been very specific: "Do you honestly believe that Joe Biden is not corrupt?" I assume that, like other politicians, Biden spends a lot of time fundraising, so we can take that for granted. Time spent fundraising is not the question. I'm more interested in what Biden does when he's not fundraising, i.e., when he's supposed to be doing the job he was elected for.