I agree. Here's what I would do if I was Nancy Pelosi. And I'm amazed she's not doing it because my respect for her is due to her record, which implies she understands the golden rule. FYI, I'm using scientific language because it's easy, but I can translate if necessary.
Because there are two conflicting hypotheses (Biden should remain t…
I agree. Here's what I would do if I was Nancy Pelosi. And I'm amazed she's not doing it because my respect for her is due to her record, which implies she understands the golden rule. FYI, I'm using scientific language because it's easy, but I can translate if necessary.
Because there are two conflicting hypotheses (Biden should remain the nominee or step down), there are two testable hypotheses. The conflict is not a to-be-neutralized threat. Instead, the conflict is a to-be-seized opportunity because you can't have a valid test of a hypothesis in a vacuum.
So, now you need two knowledgeable advocates to ensure that all the relevant evidence is included in the analysis. It's not initially obvious which hypothesis is supported by the evidence, and which one is refuted, but it is after the analysis is complete, which is when one hypothesis is confirmed, and the other is refuted, or the test is inconclusive, and that means don't change the status quo.
But that's not what's happening. Advocates of each hypothesis are using exclusively confirming evidence to support their hypothesis while ignoring refuting evidence. That's not science. Instead, it is the opposite of wise.
What I've just said is a little bit more complicated than saying "follow the golden rule," but they are just different words expressing the same meaning. And I know Nancy Pelosi to be a good Catholic, so she should know better.
Personally, I want the analysis to include all the relevant evidence because, although it seems clear to me that Biden should stay on, I know don't have enough info to know for sure.
I don't think Biden should stay on. No Democrat thinks Trump is better than Biden. It’s obvious that’s not the case to all but the MAGA crowd, who aren’t susceptible to logical argument anyway. [Please read the New York Times editorial today (Saturday the 20th), which offers a damning list of reasons Trump is unfit for office.]
As a longtime Biden fan who admires what he’s accomplished in the past four years, I nevertheless think he should withdraw his candidacy for the good of the country. I don’t think he can win, as unfair as that may be. He looks like a man on his last legs—and what he looks (and sounds) like matters in an election where Republicans are pumped up and Democrats dispirited. If Joe Biden withdraws and supports whoever replaces him vigorously, he will go down in history as a great statesman. If he continues his candidacy out of misplaced pride, he will end up a much more consequential Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who stayed too long and thereby did lasting damage to the country.
I will vote for the Biden/Harris ticket if that’s the choice, but I won’t contribute another dime to that campaign because I believe it’s a waste of money. I’m an old person who works with young people, and Biden has almost no support among them. Other people who are on the fence are not moving his way. We need a change to create some enthusiasm for a ticket that isn’t there now or we will have the second coming of Donald Trump, and God help us then.
I hear what you're saying, but I can't read your response without thinking you're ignoring valid concerns.
To me, its simple. This is not a spectator sport. This is not a movie or an episode of a TV show. In 2024, the two teams are Egalitarian Democracy and Authoritarian Autocracy, and everyone is a player on one of those two teams. Whether you're young or old, if you don't care, then by default, you're a player on the winning team, except you won't know what team you were playing for until November 5. Then, if the Authoritarians win, and you find out you can't get health care, and then the economy goes in the tank so the oligarchs can get fat and happy, and you're looking for someone to blame, there's only one place to look, and that's in the mirror.
It is not my intent to be insensitive. Instead, it is my intent to be truthful, and I'm doing my best to walk the line between the two.
Agreed on your conclusion. I don't have the evidence either, either-way. But if the Dems are to have a chance, they need to pull together, sooner the better.
Thank you Miselle. And thank you Beau. The only thing I would add is the consequence of where Beau ended. His analysis of a proposed change to the status quo (Biden as the nominee) is inconclusive.
We understand that a criminal defendant is innocent until proven guilty. We should think of the status quo the same way. Lots of criminal defendants are found guilty. Likewise, the status quo is often found to be conclusively refuted. But "conclusive" means beyond a reasonable doubt.
Mr. Carey, what evidence would you consider conclusive? I see no way to determine conclusively whether Biden's staying at the top of the ticket provides the best chance for a Democratic win. If his team were both honest and courageous, they could run some polls that would be indicative but not conclusive.
Your reference to spectator sports and TV shows seems to me both insulting to those of us who disagree with you and, to me at least, naive. While I don't approach the presidential election or any state or federal election as a "show" and take my obligation to inform myself and make thoughtful choices seriously, a significant sector of the American public (or any set of voters in any country) has shown itself to be very susceptible to image and show, and on that basis, Biden is no longer a viable candidate in an election that promises, at best, to be close and at worst, to be a blowout for Trump.
As I was watching the "The Roads with Beau" video, I didn't know where he was going. I was open to the possibility he might end up convincing me that replacing Biden is the right thing to do. What I knew for sure is he was addressing the issues I expect someone advocating in favor of replacing Biden needs to address.
Am I being naive? It depends on how you define naive. My definition is that a person is not naive if they are open minded and skeptical. I'm open minded about replacing Biden, but I'm also skeptical. I described earlier in this thread what will and what will not change my mind.
I understand why someone doesn't buy a ticket to the game if the team sucks, or doesn't watch TV shows that suck. But being willing to watch impassively while the 250-year-old American experiment comes to a ignominious end because of how the Democratic candidate makes a person feel is an insult to the people who sacrificed their lives to make our freedom possible.
In summary, I believe I'm telling the truth in language anyone should be able to understand. So, tell me I'm wrong. No problem. But understand what I'm saying first and then tell me I'm wrong in language I can understand.
Alternatively, I'm not going to stop telling the truth just because someone finds it insulting. I've been insulted by the truth as well. Sometimes it hurts.
I agree. Here's what I would do if I was Nancy Pelosi. And I'm amazed she's not doing it because my respect for her is due to her record, which implies she understands the golden rule. FYI, I'm using scientific language because it's easy, but I can translate if necessary.
Because there are two conflicting hypotheses (Biden should remain the nominee or step down), there are two testable hypotheses. The conflict is not a to-be-neutralized threat. Instead, the conflict is a to-be-seized opportunity because you can't have a valid test of a hypothesis in a vacuum.
So, now you need two knowledgeable advocates to ensure that all the relevant evidence is included in the analysis. It's not initially obvious which hypothesis is supported by the evidence, and which one is refuted, but it is after the analysis is complete, which is when one hypothesis is confirmed, and the other is refuted, or the test is inconclusive, and that means don't change the status quo.
But that's not what's happening. Advocates of each hypothesis are using exclusively confirming evidence to support their hypothesis while ignoring refuting evidence. That's not science. Instead, it is the opposite of wise.
What I've just said is a little bit more complicated than saying "follow the golden rule," but they are just different words expressing the same meaning. And I know Nancy Pelosi to be a good Catholic, so she should know better.
Personally, I want the analysis to include all the relevant evidence because, although it seems clear to me that Biden should stay on, I know don't have enough info to know for sure.
I don't think Biden should stay on. No Democrat thinks Trump is better than Biden. It’s obvious that’s not the case to all but the MAGA crowd, who aren’t susceptible to logical argument anyway. [Please read the New York Times editorial today (Saturday the 20th), which offers a damning list of reasons Trump is unfit for office.]
As a longtime Biden fan who admires what he’s accomplished in the past four years, I nevertheless think he should withdraw his candidacy for the good of the country. I don’t think he can win, as unfair as that may be. He looks like a man on his last legs—and what he looks (and sounds) like matters in an election where Republicans are pumped up and Democrats dispirited. If Joe Biden withdraws and supports whoever replaces him vigorously, he will go down in history as a great statesman. If he continues his candidacy out of misplaced pride, he will end up a much more consequential Ruth Bader Ginsberg, who stayed too long and thereby did lasting damage to the country.
I will vote for the Biden/Harris ticket if that’s the choice, but I won’t contribute another dime to that campaign because I believe it’s a waste of money. I’m an old person who works with young people, and Biden has almost no support among them. Other people who are on the fence are not moving his way. We need a change to create some enthusiasm for a ticket that isn’t there now or we will have the second coming of Donald Trump, and God help us then.
I hear what you're saying, but I can't read your response without thinking you're ignoring valid concerns.
To me, its simple. This is not a spectator sport. This is not a movie or an episode of a TV show. In 2024, the two teams are Egalitarian Democracy and Authoritarian Autocracy, and everyone is a player on one of those two teams. Whether you're young or old, if you don't care, then by default, you're a player on the winning team, except you won't know what team you were playing for until November 5. Then, if the Authoritarians win, and you find out you can't get health care, and then the economy goes in the tank so the oligarchs can get fat and happy, and you're looking for someone to blame, there's only one place to look, and that's in the mirror.
It is not my intent to be insensitive. Instead, it is my intent to be truthful, and I'm doing my best to walk the line between the two.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPRxuOWkr1E&t=6s
Agreed on your conclusion. I don't have the evidence either, either-way. But if the Dems are to have a chance, they need to pull together, sooner the better.
He is the incumbent. he has had a great record during his administration.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPRxuOWkr1E&t=6s
Thank you Miselle. And thank you Beau. The only thing I would add is the consequence of where Beau ended. His analysis of a proposed change to the status quo (Biden as the nominee) is inconclusive.
We understand that a criminal defendant is innocent until proven guilty. We should think of the status quo the same way. Lots of criminal defendants are found guilty. Likewise, the status quo is often found to be conclusively refuted. But "conclusive" means beyond a reasonable doubt.
Mr. Carey, what evidence would you consider conclusive? I see no way to determine conclusively whether Biden's staying at the top of the ticket provides the best chance for a Democratic win. If his team were both honest and courageous, they could run some polls that would be indicative but not conclusive.
Your reference to spectator sports and TV shows seems to me both insulting to those of us who disagree with you and, to me at least, naive. While I don't approach the presidential election or any state or federal election as a "show" and take my obligation to inform myself and make thoughtful choices seriously, a significant sector of the American public (or any set of voters in any country) has shown itself to be very susceptible to image and show, and on that basis, Biden is no longer a viable candidate in an election that promises, at best, to be close and at worst, to be a blowout for Trump.
As I was watching the "The Roads with Beau" video, I didn't know where he was going. I was open to the possibility he might end up convincing me that replacing Biden is the right thing to do. What I knew for sure is he was addressing the issues I expect someone advocating in favor of replacing Biden needs to address.
Am I being naive? It depends on how you define naive. My definition is that a person is not naive if they are open minded and skeptical. I'm open minded about replacing Biden, but I'm also skeptical. I described earlier in this thread what will and what will not change my mind.
I understand why someone doesn't buy a ticket to the game if the team sucks, or doesn't watch TV shows that suck. But being willing to watch impassively while the 250-year-old American experiment comes to a ignominious end because of how the Democratic candidate makes a person feel is an insult to the people who sacrificed their lives to make our freedom possible.
In summary, I believe I'm telling the truth in language anyone should be able to understand. So, tell me I'm wrong. No problem. But understand what I'm saying first and then tell me I'm wrong in language I can understand.
Alternatively, I'm not going to stop telling the truth just because someone finds it insulting. I've been insulted by the truth as well. Sometimes it hurts.