What’s to be learned? What is weak logic about the mainline, presumptive nominee, who is a sitting president, who one way or another was the only human being to beat trump in an election, would become the actual nominee and democratic candidate?
That is not a bad bet, or bad logic, if we are sitting in March or April.
Idk, I asked someone else in this thread that and they had a great answer. They mentioned how the way we predict elections has changed since 2016 (or something) and I thought that was super interesting and worth reflecting on. If I answered your question right now it might be something simple like age or someone with a better understanding of history might mention how the current level of wealth inequality compares to previous moments in history
That said, I’m not sure why this similar comment was seen as more offensive. This is literally something I try to do myself when someone I trust is wrong about something. I might not cancel em or whatever but I’ll try to understand what went wrong or maybe just stop listening to them about certain topics they’re consistently wrong on
Wealth inequality has fuck all to do with a reader’s assessment of election candidacy, especially when the primary source (the candidate) is emphatic about their intent to run.
By all available signal, Biden fully intended to run until after the debate, where the cracks formed, other candidates were discussed, and Harris stepped up.
To suggest otherwise could only be arrived at by wish, or reliance on a more distant, less direct source, which is a worse bet.
Idk, even Nancy Pelosi didn’t accept Biden’s words. So, it’s wild, to me, that an informed citizen would simply accept things the way they’re told they are. Maybe this isn’t about “sources” and more about pundits and narrative-makers/builders - the ones that decide who is “electable”. Not everyone accepted the narrative that Biden wouldn’t step down. Some even had the narrative that he must step down and apparently they were “right” - for lack of a better word (sorry for any poor communication)
That said, you’ve clearly made up your mind and you don’t really seem interested in entertaining this idea, so we really don’t have to keep going
For example, you could note that “only human being to beat Trump in an election” is a really small sample size. It’s equally true to note that so far, Hillary is the only Democrat to lose to Trump in an election. The performance post-switch would indicate Trump is not a uniquely dangerous and persuasive candidate, but that his opposition was uniquely weak so far.
What’s to be learned? What is weak logic about the mainline, presumptive nominee, who is a sitting president, who one way or another was the only human being to beat trump in an election, would become the actual nominee and democratic candidate?
That is not a bad bet, or bad logic, if we are sitting in March or April.
Idk, I asked someone else in this thread that and they had a great answer. They mentioned how the way we predict elections has changed since 2016 (or something) and I thought that was super interesting and worth reflecting on. If I answered your question right now it might be something simple like age or someone with a better understanding of history might mention how the current level of wealth inequality compares to previous moments in history
That said, I’m not sure why this similar comment was seen as more offensive. This is literally something I try to do myself when someone I trust is wrong about something. I might not cancel em or whatever but I’ll try to understand what went wrong or maybe just stop listening to them about certain topics they’re consistently wrong on
Wealth inequality has fuck all to do with a reader’s assessment of election candidacy, especially when the primary source (the candidate) is emphatic about their intent to run.
By all available signal, Biden fully intended to run until after the debate, where the cracks formed, other candidates were discussed, and Harris stepped up.
To suggest otherwise could only be arrived at by wish, or reliance on a more distant, less direct source, which is a worse bet.
Idk, even Nancy Pelosi didn’t accept Biden’s words. So, it’s wild, to me, that an informed citizen would simply accept things the way they’re told they are. Maybe this isn’t about “sources” and more about pundits and narrative-makers/builders - the ones that decide who is “electable”. Not everyone accepted the narrative that Biden wouldn’t step down. Some even had the narrative that he must step down and apparently they were “right” - for lack of a better word (sorry for any poor communication)
That said, you’ve clearly made up your mind and you don’t really seem interested in entertaining this idea, so we really don’t have to keep going
For example, you could note that “only human being to beat Trump in an election” is a really small sample size. It’s equally true to note that so far, Hillary is the only Democrat to lose to Trump in an election. The performance post-switch would indicate Trump is not a uniquely dangerous and persuasive candidate, but that his opposition was uniquely weak so far.