American Politics Discussion Thread

[Charr Babies]

Better on Gaza. Prove he would be better on Gaza. Specific scenario you are saying you care about. Give me any hope of this. We've established already Biden is going, but even if he wasn't you should still be able to provide some idicators Trump would be better.

To be fair I can only identify 3 of those people by sight in that photo, McConnel, Mcarthy and Netenyahu (although that may be Ron Johnson turned sideways behind them). I know Israeli support is somewhat bi partisan, but its not like its a secret which side is more so. I'm also aware Republicans recently invited him again.

So you like what Kamala is saying, but will vote for Trump anyways? Now I'm more confused.

I have thought of another example that may indicate why I'm confused.

Lets say you care about climate change and think addressing it is vital to human civilization going forward. I don't know if you do or not, but for this exercise try to pretend that you do.

Biden hasn't done enough on Climate Change. Because the future of humanity depends on it, I am going to vote for Trump.

Do you see why your logic is confusing? By your logic if I care about climate change I should vote for Trump, who like Israel has multiple examples and statements indicating he would be worse. Have you ever heard of shooting yourself in the foot? Although that usually is in association with an accident instead of purposefully.

Still trying to twist words and change the narrative. LoL 

[Mjmd]

I wasn't trying to change the narrative, I was trying to show how illogical your thought process sounds to me. Now I believe I'm up to about 25 times asking for some kind of logic on why you think Trump would be better for the situation in Gaza? We can make it 26. You can't claim I'm trying to change the narrative by showing how illogical your position is, while also never logically supporting your position.

[Charr Babies]

I wasn't trying to change the narrative, I was trying to show how illogical your thought process sounds to me. Now I believe I'm up to about 25 times asking for some kind of logic on why you think Trump would be better for the situation in Gaza? We can make it 26. You can't claim I'm trying to change the narrative by showing how illogical your position is, while also never logically supporting your position.

Maybe I should request to have "Biden must go - Trump or no Trump" to be the QOTM as a reminder for you. 

Biden must go is the narrative! 

What trump or whoever ends up to be the replacement may or may not do is anyone's guess. Not having a track record for genocide is a GoodThing™

[Mjmd]

Biden is going. We've established that. Trump has a heavy track record of actions and statements indicating he would, with almost certainty, be worse. Even if Biden wasn't going your logic is flawed. You choose the least bad option. I could give other examples showing you how stupid your logic is, but you would just claim I'm trying to change the narrative. But just going over the most basic logic, just because candidate A has been bad on an issue does not by default mean candidate B would be better on that issue. This is logic that should be painfully obvious, but people ignore it all the time, including you. Maybe actually looking at the candidates and what they've said on the issues matters. Just maybe (heavy sarcasm intended). As Biden is going, the choice seems even more obvious to me if that is what you actually care about.

[Charr Babies]

... is it worth betting on the 2% he makes it an unknown amount better? Again, I feel 2% is being generous....

Maybe you have no idea how funny you look when you keep saying logic this, illogical that, fallacy this, fallacy that, and yet you are the most guilty. 

The logic goes, Biben = genocide = fact
I will be even more generous with you. I will take 1%. 
Please explain how 1% is worse than 0% chance
 

[Mjmd]

Heh a fair question! I almost thought it wasn't possible.

So lets assume Biden doesn't do anything different after the election (assuming A he was still the candidate and B he isn't freed up politically after the election to do something different). This is current state continues. Lets also assume the general trend line of deaths remains as it is (obviously big assumption as there are multiple factors). That is our base line. Lets say 3,000 deaths a month. Adjust depending on what you think current numbers actually are. Obviously quality of life and long term health issues due to lack of aid could impact your number; feel free to adjust up.

So there is a 2% chance the deaths and situation improve. We don't know by how much, but lets assume a miracle occurs and Trump doesn't let them "finish the job". He goes against his and other Republican talking points and past actions and halts all aid delivers and stops protecting them in the UN and this gets us an end to at least the current situation. 0 deaths / month.

So a lot of it depends on how you distribute the remaining 98%. I'll keep with my original 2%. Trump has heavily criticized Biden for his attempts at pressuring Israel to do more to protect civilians and let in aid. I'm going to put some options in here and then let you fill in the numbers and do the calculation. I'll note there is obviously a sliding scale here, but just keeping it simple.
___% of current situation continuing same; 3000 deaths - situation B
___ % of slightly worse situation, ____ deaths - situation C
___ % of a much worse situation, ____ deaths - situation D

Now its been a while since math class, but simple expected value formula.
2%*0 (IE 0) + B%*3000 + C%*C death # + D%*D death #. Your logical test is if that exceeds current 3000.

Again, run your own calculation, but lets do some messy guesswork. I will try to be generous to Trump.

Situation B seems VERY unlikely to me. If nothing else Netanyahu would feel emboldened and Trump almost never admits he is wrong so him doing even as much as Biden doesn't seem likely to me. I feel 10% here is generous as I think its closer to 0%.
Situation C. I'm going to be generous here and give a large portion of the remainder here. 86%. I'm going to assume only additional 500 more deaths a month so 3500. I don't know what an unpressured Israel does and how much the humanitarian aid from the US matters, but I think we can agree a 16% increase is also probably generous.
Situation D. Again, lets be generous and give this 2%. There is absolutely valid reason to believe this far more likely than a miracle the other way but lets stick with it. Lets only tack on another 500 up to 4000 although if we are subtracting 3000 for the other 2% only adding another 500 here again seems generous.

Our simplified calc is
2%*0 + 10%*3000 +86%*3500 + 2% *4000
0 + 300 + 3010 + 80 = 3,390 / month
3,390 > 3,000 therefore we expect a worse outcome.

Now you can play with the expected death numbers / %s to get a better outcome if you assume an extremely low increase, but I don't think I'm being unreasonable. A 5% from original 3k instead of 16% increase from still ends up with more. Obviously if you get less generous it looks even worse.

I get the impulse here to hope for a miracle. Assuming you are arguing in good faith I understand the instinct. But it just isn't how politics has ever worked to assume candidate B will be better at something because candidate A is bad on it.

[Charr Babies]

Heh a fair question! I almost thought it wasn't possible.

So lets assume Biden doesn't do anything different after the election (assuming A he was still the candidate and B he isn't freed up politically after the election to do something different). This is current state continues. Lets also assume the general trend line of deaths remains as it is (obviously big assumption as there are multiple factors). That is our base line. Lets say 3,000 deaths a month. Adjust depending on what you think current numbers actually are. Obviously quality of life and long term health issues due to lack of aid could impact your number; feel free to adjust up.

So there is a 2% chance the deaths and situation improve. We don't know by how much, but lets assume a miracle occurs and Trump doesn't let them "finish the job". He goes against his and other Republican talking points and past actions and halts all aid delivers and stops protecting them in the UN and this gets us an end to at least the current situation. 0 deaths / month.

So a lot of it depends on how you distribute the remaining 98%. I'll keep with my original 2%. Trump has heavily criticized Biden for his attempts at pressuring Israel to do more to protect civilians and let in aid. I'm going to put some options in here and then let you fill in the numbers and do the calculation. I'll note there is obviously a sliding scale here, but just keeping it simple.
___% of current situation continuing same; 3000 deaths - situation B
___ % of slightly worse situation, ____ deaths - situation C
___ % of a much worse situation, ____ deaths - situation D

Now its been a while since math class, but simple expected value formula.
2%*0 (IE 0) + B%*3000 + C%*C death # + D%*D death #. Your logical test is if that exceeds current 3000.

Again, run your own calculation, but lets do some messy guesswork. I will try to be generous to Trump.

Situation B seems VERY unlikely to me. If nothing else Netanyahu would feel emboldened and Trump almost never admits he is wrong so him doing even as much as Biden doesn't seem likely to me. I feel 10% here is generous as I think its closer to 0%.
Situation C. I'm going to be generous here and give a large portion of the remainder here. 86%. I'm going to assume only additional 500 more deaths a month so 3500. I don't know what an unpressured Israel does and how much the humanitarian aid from the US matters, but I think we can agree a 16% increase is also probably generous.
Situation D. Again, lets be generous and give this 2%. There is absolutely valid reason to believe this far more likely than a miracle the other way but lets stick with it. Lets only tack on another 500 up to 4000 although if we are subtracting 3000 for the other 2% only adding another 500 here again seems generous.

Our simplified calc is
2%*0 + 10%*3000 +86%*3500 + 2% *4000
0 + 300 + 3010 + 80 = 3,390 / month
3,390 > 3,000 therefore we expect a worse outcome.

Now you can play with the expected death numbers / %s to get a better outcome if you assume an extremely low increase, but I don't think I'm being unreasonable. A 5% from original 3k instead of 16% increase from still ends up with more. Obviously if you get less generous it looks even worse.

I get the impulse here to hope for a miracle. Assuming you are arguing in good faith I understand the instinct. But it just isn't how politics has ever worked to assume candidate B will be better at something because candidate A is bad on it.

All this just for you to prove trump would be better, by however a small margin. Why do you need me to advocate for trump?

Like I said, you and I have very different morals. To me even a single innocent life is worth saving.

[Mjmd]

Did you miss the 3,390 > 3,000 so we expect a worse outcome. The larger expected value was for Trump, so I think you may have misunderstood if you think the above is proving better.

The odds are more lives lost. Again, I think I was generous in my assumptions. However, I will admit there are so many factors that the math was simple, but I don't think the overall logic is bad. That is before you even consider Harris is running instead of Biden.

If your argument is I'm hoping for a miracle in denial of likely outcomes, I can understand at an emotional level, but there just isn't any logic there. I want to save the most given likely scenarios.

[Charr Babies]

To be honest, I skipped the entire calculation. If you think your calculations are proof trump is guilty of genocide then call the thought police.

The thread should have closed when I gave you the last words which you took. But, you decided to carry on after that. Biden must go, and he is. I only hope Kamala is not all about empty campaign promises. If she shows potential she will get my vote....

See, I don't care who or which party wins. Trying to change the narrative to get me to defend trump was a fool's errand.

[Mjmd]

I'm not sure you read anything I write to be fair. I'm arguing likely outcomes. You asked me to prove 1% wasn't better than the status quo (you said 0%, but that isn't the actual scenario). I did. I'm arguing because candidate A is bad at an issue doesn't mean candidate B would be better. This is basic logic.

If you want last word take it. This has been going on for 3 days and multiple pages. But I guarantee it will have no logic behind it. If you surprise me with a sudden burst of logic, I will post acknowledging. You can also just acknowledge you are hoping for a miracle with no logic behind it and that is also fine. I may also post if do an ad hominin attack as you've done a couple of times that I've ignored.