4 ms·

> 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 politic

by 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.
- lisper 3y ago
  > Do you honestly believe that Joe Biden is not corrupt? And I'll give you the same answer I gave before, but I'll try to be more succinct: the answer to that questions turns entirely on your definition of "corrupt". I have seen no evidence that Joe Biden has done anything materially different from what every U.S. politician does by necessity in order to remain employed. If that's "corrupt" then it is not possible to hold elected office in the U.S. without being "corrupt", which makes that not a very useful definition IMHO. But this too is a non-sequitur, because the question was never whether Biden is "corrupt" or not, but rather whether he is, as Donald Trump often claims, the most corrupt president in U.S. history. I don't think there is any plausible definition of "corrupt" under which that is true. Indeed, I think that Trump is vastly more corrupt than Biden under any plausible definition of the word. [UPDATE] > he's been a paid tool of the Delaware financial industry for his entire career I don't know much about the details of Biden's career, but I don't doubt that he's supported legislation beneficial to the financial industry and they have in turn spent generously to keep him in office. But is that "corruption" or "being responsive to his constituents"? The thing I have not seen Biden do is use his power to enrich himself personally the way Trump and Thomas have done. That to me is a useful distinction, and a more appropriate deployment of the word "corrupt".
  - lapcat 3y ago
    > I don't know much about the details of Biden's career Ok, well, I really wish you would have said that a long time ago. > I don't doubt that he's supported legislation beneficial to the financial industry and they have in turn spent generously to keep him in office. But is that "corruption" or "being responsive to his constituents"? Oy, I can't believe that's a serious question. I count constituents by the number of people, not the number of dollars.
    - lisper 3y ago
      > I really wish you would have said that a long time ago. Why? If I accept your premise, what difference does it make if I'm familiar with the details? > Oy, I can't believe that's a serious question. It's dead serious. Why do you have such a hard time believing that? > I count constituents by the number of people, not the number of dollars. Do you not think that supporting one of the leading industries in the state you represent, an industry that directly employs tens of thousands of people and indirectly employs hundreds of thousands more, counts -- or is at least defensible -- as being supportive of your constituents even when measured by people rather than dollars? Also, if I have money then chances are that I earned it by being productive. Why should that not entitle me to greater consideration than someone who has been less productive as adjudicated by the free market? (Yes, I know earlier I said there were no free markets. The phrase "free market" meant something different there than it does here. There it referred to sellers, here it refers to buyers. The U.S. does have a relatively free market on the demand side, just not on the supply side.) BTW, counting constituents by number of people rather than dollars has never been the American way. It's actually a very modern notion. At the founding, only white male land owners could vote. The founders specifically designed our system to not make all voices equal. Again, I'm not saying this is a good thing. I don't think it is. But it's a fact.

by lisper 3y ago

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.

lisper 3y ago
> Do you honestly believe that Joe Biden is not corrupt? And I'll give you the same answer I gave before, but I'll try to be more succinct: the answer to that questions turns entirely on your definition of "corrupt". I have seen no evidence that Joe Biden has done anything materially different from what every U.S. politician does by necessity in order to remain employed. If that's "corrupt" then it is not possible to hold elected office in the U.S. without being "corrupt", which makes that not a very useful definition IMHO. But this too is a non-sequitur, because the question was never whether Biden is "corrupt" or not, but rather whether he is, as Donald Trump often claims, the most corrupt president in U.S. history. I don't think there is any plausible definition of "corrupt" under which that is true. Indeed, I think that Trump is vastly more corrupt than Biden under any plausible definition of the word. [UPDATE] > he's been a paid tool of the Delaware financial industry for his entire career I don't know much about the details of Biden's career, but I don't doubt that he's supported legislation beneficial to the financial industry and they have in turn spent generously to keep him in office. But is that "corruption" or "being responsive to his constituents"? The thing I have not seen Biden do is use his power to enrich himself personally the way Trump and Thomas have done. That to me is a useful distinction, and a more appropriate deployment of the word "corrupt".
- lapcat 3y ago
  > I don't know much about the details of Biden's career Ok, well, I really wish you would have said that a long time ago. > I don't doubt that he's supported legislation beneficial to the financial industry and they have in turn spent generously to keep him in office. But is that "corruption" or "being responsive to his constituents"? Oy, I can't believe that's a serious question. I count constituents by the number of people, not the number of dollars.
  - lisper 3y ago
    > I really wish you would have said that a long time ago. Why? If I accept your premise, what difference does it make if I'm familiar with the details? > Oy, I can't believe that's a serious question. It's dead serious. Why do you have such a hard time believing that? > I count constituents by the number of people, not the number of dollars. Do you not think that supporting one of the leading industries in the state you represent, an industry that directly employs tens of thousands of people and indirectly employs hundreds of thousands more, counts -- or is at least defensible -- as being supportive of your constituents even when measured by people rather than dollars? Also, if I have money then chances are that I earned it by being productive. Why should that not entitle me to greater consideration than someone who has been less productive as adjudicated by the free market? (Yes, I know earlier I said there were no free markets. The phrase "free market" meant something different there than it does here. There it referred to sellers, here it refers to buyers. The U.S. does have a relatively free market on the demand side, just not on the supply side.) BTW, counting constituents by number of people rather than dollars has never been the American way. It's actually a very modern notion. At the founding, only white male land owners could vote. The founders specifically designed our system to not make all voices equal. Again, I'm not saying this is a good thing. I don't think it is. But it's a fact.