I watched the debate last night and it was much better than the first one simply because it could not have got worse. Believe it or not, for the most part Trump did tone it down as his advisers had promised. He did not interrupt Joe Biden as much though he did refuse to listen to the moderator when she tried to limit the length of his responses. What he did as usual was to reel off lies, make up stuff, and refuse to answer some questions, and keep veering off into accusing Joe Biden and his family of getting payments from foreign governments.
Biden got in some good shots at Trump for not having any plan to replace Obamacare and for being utterly callous about the suffering of so many people due to covid-19.
I thought the starkest difference between the two was when they were asked about institutional racism.
Both candidates were asked to speak directly to the black and brown Americans about racism in American. Biden said plainly that institutional racism exists and that combatting racial inequality would be a priority of his administration. Trump, ignoring the prompt, assailed his opponent and then claimed once again that he had done more for African Americans than any president since Abraham Lincoln.
Scoffing at the notion that Trump would liken himself to Lincoln, Biden said Trump was “one of the most racist presidents we’ve had in modern history” and “pours fuel on every single racist fire”.
I do not know if any presidential candidate of a major party, at least within the last century, has been flatly accused by a rival candidate of being not just racist but one of the most racist in modern history. It shows how far we have sunk that I suspect that millions of people reacted just like me, not in shock but just nodded and thought, “Yeah, that sounds right.”
Another difference that came up multiple times was that Trump would attack cities and states that he said were controlled by Democrats while Biden repeatedly said that he would be the president of everyone, not just of the people who voted for him. Even in the final minutes they were given for saying what they would say on inauguration day, Trump went off on some attack lines while Biden repeated that he was going to work for the benefit of everyone.
It was clear that Biden’s goal was to portray himself as the empathetic unifier who will bring peace and stability to the country, in contrast to the divisiveness of Trump.
So while the debate was definitely better, I am not sure that either party can claim a clear victory. Each candidate’s supporters will find things they like that their candidate did. So it will likely not ‘move the needle’ to use a cliché favored by the pundit class.
Which means a win for whoever was ahead initially, ie Biden. Since the two did not enter the debate on equal footing their goals were (or should have been) different. Trump desperately needs to get votes from outside his base, whereas Biden mostly needs not to lose any part of his coalition, maybe gain a bit of support from outside it.
And even if it would move the needle you get people who go
“Trump is really bad but if we don’t vote for him then on Jan 21 half the pregnant women (that is the ones that didn’t vote for Biden) in the US will be forced to abort.” or some form of claptrap like that.
My reaction: “There was a debate?”
[interpret that as you like]
Apparently Biden made a huge mistake according to the right wing analysts because he’s going to kill the oil industry and lose all the oil producing states by stating that he will phase out oil production for environmental reasons. I have no idea if that is actually something the average ‘normal’ voter would have noticed and if that would have any impact on voting decisions but it is interesting to see the right trying to find anything that they can make into a big deal.
@jean(#4):
That worked so well with coal, whole swathes of the USA did vote for the republicans due to them lying about it (since a nefarious enemy is easier to beat then “we won’t buy since there are cheaper alternatives”). That got trounced because first gas and now wind & sun are cheaper ways to get electricity. And if things keep up as they are in ten years wind & sun will beat oil for energy production while large scale short and medium term (that is day-night cycle and several weeks) storage will reach a point where it isn’t a niche anymore seeing that they are already building smaller installations to store peek production for wind & sun.
Are all atheists left wing? I have been watching the atheist experience on You Tube during the lockdown and enjoy it very much. I am an atheist, brought up very Catholic. Watching the videos has helped me to focus my beliefs and revisit the old arguments and rebuttals.
But the video where a constitutionalist skeptic of Medicare for all called in and was greeted with derision by Matt and Jen.
People who believe in individual freedom of thought and action have a responsibility to treat those with different political as well as religious views civilly. Remarks that imply that people with a different view are evil are unbecoming. One host snarkily said the caller was not Welcome to call back simply for his political view.
Those who do not believe in God should watch they do not substitute the State as the being with magical powers.
Brendan,
No. Most surely, no.
So? Was the video greeted with derision on the basis that it was not sufficiently atheistic, or what? [see below]
What? No.
Individual freedom of thought and action applies as much to people who want to treat those with different political as well as religious views non-civilly as to those who don’t.
(Or: Prescriptive ethics is contrary to freethought)
Well then, it was a political view, not an atheist view. If this is upon what your initial question was predicated, you’ve made an error [see above].
Obviously, this claim is inapplicable to those who do not believe in God on the basis that they don’t believe in beings with magical powers. 😉
No, only most of them. But everybody should be. Why not you? I don’t think being a very special snowflake is a good enough excuse.
There’s nothing civil about denying that everyone has a right to healthcare, including those who are too poor to afford insurance and those who’ve lost a job that had offered insurance rather than plain old cash (which one is thus free to spend on something else). Why should anyone be welcoming to people with political views that cause so much harm?
Your individual responsibility is to express a political view that is worth taking seriously. If all you’ve got is whining that some aren’t excited to hear more of the same indefensible crap we’ve heard for years, then of course you’re free to do that. So there is that. But this is what it actually buys you. It doesn’t get you a pony.
Nobody thinks the state is a being with magical powers. So your bullshit is duly noted.
cr:
I very much doubt that; if anything, the ratio is skewed the other way.
You forgot to add “in my opinion”.
In the US, where religion seems to be more salient in politics than it may be in other countries, it’s skewed to the left, in terms of party affiliation, how they identify themselves ideologically, and their views on specific issues (like abortion, gay rights, the environment, etc.). The statistics have been consistent about that in all the studies I’ve seen over the years.
You forgot to add that you think that this is just my opinion.
CR:
In the USA, what is considered “left” (e.g. Bernie S) is, by world standards, at best centrist.
—
Why would I add that? It’s not just your opinion, others share it.
(But still, it’s indeed an opinion — not exactly like thermodynamics, is it? 😉 )
Actully, it [political sociology] is rather like thermodynamics -- both are statistical sciences.
Some views are evil -- and some are evil enough to make it pretty certain those holding them are evil. And “individual freedom of thought and action” does not imply freedom from the consequences of how you use them.
@6 Brendan Trainor,
It sounds as if you may have missed the whole “Deep Rifts” controversy that took place over the last two decades. When I first became aware of the movement, it presented kind of a “one big happy family” vibe with a united front against organized religion. But first 9/11 and then, more so, “gamergate” exposed major political differences in the atheist movement, to the extent that now there are plenty of atheists who believe that how you want to treat your fellow humans is way more important than whether or not you believe in any gods. I think it all started with questions about how Muslims should be treated, then spread to women, gay people, trans people, and other oppressed groups.
Others here can tell you who the major names are on both sides of the political divide, if you’re interested in that sort of thing.
John Morales:
Those are not the considerations or standards of Brendan Trainor or others in this country. Evidently, you couldn’t come up with a relevant contribution.
There are many non-opinions which are “not exactly like thermodynamics” in various respects. If you don’t realize that, then you should probably get out more often.