Presidential predictions for 2024?

[Tiassa]

You've become irrelevant. No, that's not accurate. You've never been relevant. That's the problem.

Reposting articles and footnoting isn't doing much. Rambling isn't an art form either nor is sarcasm.

Look, I understand reading comprehension is one of those things that comes with a built-in liberal bias, but inasmuch as that assessment is one of the Overton Window, it says whatever it says about society.

Meanwhile, if you would pretend the Boomer generation was somehow curmudgeon-free, yeah, I can't wait to read that one.

 

[Jeeves]

Let

I don't think you understand what money is.

Let's just say you and I have very different concepts of what money is.

 

[Seattle]

Look, I understand reading comprehension is one of those things that comes with a built-in liberal bias, but inasmuch as that assessment is one of the Overton Window, it says whatever it says about society.

Meanwhile, if you would pretend the Boomer generation was somehow curmudgeon-free, yeah, I can't wait to read that one.

The first sentence is meaningless and doesn't require the use of "Overton Window", you just like to say it.

The second sentence of a curmudgeon-free generation is equally without point. No one suggested that any generation was curmudgeon-free. As usual, you are wasting time and adding nothing.

Profit margins aren't high but you don't address that and instead want to argue about curmudgeons. Again, irrelevant. If we need a human thesaurus, we'll give you a call.

 

[Seattle]

Let

Let's just say you and I have very different concepts of what money is.

Let's just Google it...

"
Money is an object or medium of exchange that is generally accepted as payment for goods and services, and repayment of debts in a given country or socio-economic context. It symbolizes perceived value and is the principal measure of wealth. Money facilitates transactions and powers financial growth, making trade with people we might not know or trust possible. "

 

[Tiassa]

Clicking the image can't possibly be worse than wasting your time on this sidebar.​

The second sentence of a curmudgeon-free generation is equally without point. No one suggested that any generation was curmudgeon-free. As usual, you are wasting time and adding nothing.

Well, you did say:

When all you can say is "is that all you've got"...you've just demonstrated that you've got nothing. When you use "curmudgeon boomer" you are also demonstrating the same.

The prospect that "curmudgeon boomer" equals "nothing" (i.e., "demonstrating the same") is not irrelevant: If I call your argument a "pipe dream", what does that actually mean, so the reference point is the Boomer curmudgeon version: 「Stick that in your pipe, and smoke it.」

Consider this: There is an old meaning of "ad hominem" that precedes the current, and that old form relied on a prejudice about whether we could trust someone who is of whatever demonized classification. The modern version is a libertarian-rightist political specialty by which "ad hom" refers to anything someone considers a personal attack against their own self. It's rather quite convenient; one can hold an opinion, acknowledge internally that the opinion is notorious, and still assert criticism of the opinion is an "ad hom" against the person. True, the form has limited application, and it's also true that acknowledging the history of the pipe dream is not, in this circumstance, without merit. Fallaciously bawling that, "No one suggested that any generation was curmudgeon-free", is dishonest, and, frankly, you ought to be embarrassed.

Are you capable of anything more than wasting people's time?

Just say so; they'll be happy to pass you over.

 

[Seattle]

Clicking the image can't possibly be worse than wasting your time on this sidebar.​

Well, you did say:



The prospect that "curmudgeon boomer" equals "nothing" (i.e., "demonstrating the same") is not irrelevant: If I call your argument a "pipe dream", what does that actually mean, so the reference point is the Boomer curmudgeon version: 「Stick that in your pipe, and smoke it.」

Consider this: There is an old meaning of "ad hominem" that precedes the current, and that old form relied on a prejudice about whether we could trust someone who is of whatever demonized classification. The modern version is a libertarian-rightist political specialty by which "ad hom" refers to anything someone considers a personal attack against their own self. It's rather quite convenient; one can hold an opinion, acknowledge internally that the opinion is notorious, and still assert criticism of the opinion is an "ad hom" against the person. True, the form has limited application, and it's also true that acknowledging the history of the pipe dream is not, in this circumstance, without merit. Fallaciously bawling that, "No one suggested that any generation was curmudgeon-free", is dishonest, and, frankly, you ought to be embarrassed.

Are you capable of anything more than wasting people's time?

Just say so; they'll be happy to pass you over.

All you have posted is nonsense. There is nothing of substance in any of your posts.

 

[Tiassa]

All you have posted is nonsense. There is nothing of substance in any of your posts.

The whole of the conservative argument.

Thank you.

 

[Jeeves]

Money is an object or medium of exchange that is generally accepted as payment for goods and services, and repayment of debts in a given country or socio-economic context.

Yes. The socio-economic context. We don't agree on what that should be.

Since this has no bearing on the US presidential election, I'll just leave it there.

 

[Seattle]

The whole of the conservative argument.

Thank you.

It's not a conservative argument. It's just reality. You don't offer any solution other than all problems are caused by non-progressives. You don't appear to understand or agree with capitalism while not knowing what capitalism is.

You can name call, make sarcastic comments, post mindlessly long diatribes about nothing but there is no actual understanding or a solution based on current reality.

Why do you think profit margins are high? Why do you think shareholders are unduly rewarded? What is the proper role of a corporation in your worldview? Where does the money come from in your system?

You never say. You just throw stones without any knowledge of the subject matter. It's not about Republican vs Democrat. Both are just noise anyway. It's just fans of two teams insulting each other while the world burns.

That's why you are irrelevant.

 

[Tiassa]

It's just reality.

The cry of the desperate.

Consider, it's, like seventeen posts later, and all you've managed to do is prevaricate and obfuscate in order to separate the moment from the issue at hand.

So, you were called out↗ for your cheap, folksy crackpottery↗, and the best you can do is that your argument is "just reality".

But, no, venom and magic jack↗ just aren't going to carry that weight.

So, look: Your behavior isn't any outstanding phenomenon. This grumpy idealism isn't unique; we've seen it before↗. And as I said then↗: Internalizing our morality can be unreliable. Internalized standards describing what it means to grow up and take responsibility, most of these iterations are about feeling better for having said so.

Spoiler

[/spiler]

 

[Seattle]

The cry of the desperate.

Consider, it's, like seventeen posts later, and all you've managed to do is prevaricate and obfuscate in order to separate the moment from the issue at hand.

So, you were called out↗ for your cheap, folksy crackpottery↗, and the best you can do is that your argument is "just reality".

But, no, venom and magic jack↗ just aren't going to carry that weight.

So, look: Your behavior isn't any outstanding phenomenon. This grumpy idealism isn't unique; we've seen it before↗. And as I said then↗: Internalizing our morality can be unreliable. Internalized standards describing what it means to grow up and take responsibility, most of these iterations are about feeling better for having said so.

​

​

Spoiler

[/spiler]​

​

​

You still haven't managed to do anything other than name call. Let's face it, that's all you're got.

You are the one who hasn't managed to do well in the real world, not me. You aren't going to do any better by being irreverent.

Yes, Magic Jack seems silly to me as well but it works. For you though, that's all you have as an argument along with "crackpottery".

In the real world, who do you think the "crackpot" is? It isn't me. I'm not angry, bitter, living with mom in my 40's.

Let's face it, you probably haven't adapted well in life, have you?

In any event, to be relevant you'll need to talk about the issues and not avoid the issues with name calling.

 

[TheVat]

All the "working class" people that you describe is basically just making up excuses. You can control how many babies you have, how many cars, what size dwelling and you can generally live within your means.

Most do, some don't. The rest is just excuses. No one is owed a living. Everyone has to work for it one way or another. Money doesn't grow on trees so society as a whole has to be productive or there is nothing for anyone...

You should get out more. Millions of Americans are not paid a living wage and therefore cannot live within their means. In my state, and many others, you cannot work full-time on minimum wage and pay rent (on the humblest flat), food, transport, clothing, medical, and emergency needs. You will have to skip one of those or hope you can get some form of charity or government assistance. These people are busting their humps to survive, they are not making "excuses." There's a reason many of the homeless in this country now fall into the category of the working homeless.

 

[Jeeves]

Some people - notably those who tend to, or faithfully and dutifully do vote Republican - have a strangely skewed notion of 'reality'. Not only in matters financial, but of self-image, of society and how it works, of the future, of the world at large. Reality consists of considerably more than our ephemeral economic arrangements.

 

[Tiassa]

Exemplary

You still haven't managed to do anything other than name call. Let's face it, that's all you're got.

You are the one who hasn't managed to do well in the real world, not me. You aren't going to do any better by being irreverent.

It does make some kind of point that scrutinizing the presuppositions of an argument¹ is apparently so overwhelming a challenge that all you can do is attack and insult.

It's hardly new, and it's not uncommon. Many conservatives buckle like that; they'll do anything to avoid such scrutiny. The basic idea is that since their argument doesn't work, they need to dilute the discussion, and invective is the best they can come up with: #435↑, 440↑, 443↑, 446↑, 449↑, 451↑.

The problem for conservatives, of course, is that even basic scrutiny is so dangerous to their argument.

So here's a hint, and not even a pro-tip, just the basics: When your argument is to moralize about lifestyle choices, don't use identifiable speculation to justify your moralization. Like I said: "simplistic", "blithe platitudes", "history", "circumstance", "mythopoeia".

And the best you can do is make as much rude noise as you can in order to change the subject.
____________________

Notes:

¹ e.g., "rags to riches stories are always incredibly simplistic", "Blithe platitudes about lifestyle choices and living within means are, at this point in history, the sound of failure", "In such circumstances, your complaint … just doesn't work", "the sort of crackpottery that comes from the Boomer-era mythopoeia about liberals and the economy".​

 

[Jeeves]

The problem for conservatives, of course, is that even basic scrutiny is so dangerous to their argument.

This was not always the case. I can remember conservatives, as well as Conservatives, who actually had solid reasons for wanting preserve certain aspects of a cultural tradition, a moral precept or a style of social organization. I might not agree with their reasons, but I found them comprehensible.
But "That's the way it has to be, because that's the way it is." makes no sense to me. The idea behind progressive attitudes and politics is that the reality we find is unsatisfactory and therefore needs to be changed in some way. If we implement the right changes, reality will be a little better.

 

[parmalee]

Fancy Farm Plantation



Fallacious and near to magical thinking. "Sick and infirm" is a broad category; 133 million Americans suffering chronic illness is a statistic difficult to reconcile with your speculation ("probably 3% max of society"). "Making up excuses" is itself make-believe. And, look, someone who will never be pregnant from rape, whose husband will never sabotage birth control. And, sure, we can try saying something about being a Mormon or Catholic wife, but those generally aren't the people such make-believe accuses. Let's face it dude: If a woman was you not conceiving a pregnancy inside her own body would probably be a lot easier.

That "3 percent" figure is deeply ridiculous. I can imagine the architects of the Logan's Run universe frantically trying to contact Seattle for tips.

Do you ever wonder if our neighbor might actually be Bill Maher? Though Bill Maher's grandfather would probably be more accurate.

 

[Seattle]

Still nothing but name calling.

 

[Seattle]

Exemplary



It does make some kind of point that scrutinizing the presuppositions of an argument¹ is apparently so overwhelming a challenge that all you can do is attack and insult.

It's hardly new, and it's not uncommon. Many conservatives buckle like that; they'll do anything to avoid such scrutiny. The basic idea is that since their argument doesn't work, they need to dilute the discussion, and invective is the best they can come up with: #435↑, 440↑, 443↑, 446↑, 449↑, 451↑.

The problem for conservatives, of course, is that even basic scrutiny is so dangerous to their argument.

So here's a hint, and not even a pro-tip, just the basics: When your argument is to moralize about lifestyle choices, don't use identifiable speculation to justify your moralization. Like I said: "simplistic", "blithe platitudes", "history", "circumstance", "mythopoeia".

And the best you can do is make as much rude noise as you can in order to change the subject.
____________________

Notes:

¹ e.g., "rags to riches stories are always incredibly simplistic", "Blithe platitudes about lifestyle choices and living within means are, at this point in history, the sound of failure", "In such circumstances, your complaint … just doesn't work", "the sort of crackpottery that comes from the Boomer-era mythopoeia about liberals and the economy".​

Your entire post is about name calling and quoting yourself. You don't need footnotes to quote yourself.

You haven't addressed any of the economic questions that I've asked. All you seem to have is name calling and sarcasm. I don't need your "pro-tip". You need to put forth your solutions rather than talk about "conservative", "Trump", and whoever the boogeyman is when you're actually addressing me. I'm not Trump, I'm fine with Harris. I'm for a woman's right to choose.

Ignoring all that, not putting forth your own solutions, it just disingenuous and it's why you have been to this point, irrelevant.

 

[Seattle]

That "3 percent" figure is deeply ridiculous. I can imagine the architects of the Logan's Run universe frantically trying to contact Seattle for tips.

Do you ever wonder if our neighbor might actually be Bill Maher? Though Bill Maher's grandfather would probably be more accurate.

Name calling and not putting forth your solution is disingenuous as well. Do you think implying that I'm Bill Maher's grandfather strengthens any argument, should you ever decide to put forth one?

Regarding the 3% (you pick a figure then), that was referring to those who truly can't take care of themselves in society. Most everyone else can do something to contribute.

People like to complain about the minimum wage, for example, and they want it raised, this will also raise most other wages (why would someone do construction if they can make the same handing someone a cup of coffee?) and then they will turn around and complain about inflation.

They are causing inflation. Very few people are actually trying to support a family on a minimum wage job. Those just starting out who are in a minimum wage job generally have roommates.

You can't pay someone who hands people coffee for a living enough money to live by themselves in a HCOL city.

This is just a fact. It has nothing to do with Trump, MAGA, conservative, Bill Maher's grandfather. What is your solution? Is it that you don't know enough to have a solution?

 

[parmalee]

Name calling and not putting forth your solution is disingenuous as well. Do you think implying that I'm Bill Maher's grandfather strengthens any argument, should you ever decide to put forth one?

And what does you posting blatant falsehoods contribute? You never source anything or provide citations. Well, you can't--because you are the only source for such disinformation.