Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 319: Dishonorable Discharges

(+) Yeah! (+)

I can't believe you're getting mad about a guy saying "yeah I'd rather save lives even if it costs me the presidency."

---

https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1303034401048211467?s=21

A lot to unpack here
---

TheRock1525 posted...

I can't believe you're getting mad about a guy saying "yeah I'd rather save lives even if it costs me the presidency."

Eh its only a 50,000 lives difference between a vaccine tomorrow and a vaccine the day after the election. Thats a drop in the bucket this election cycle!
---

If anything, Biden answering the opposite - "Oh. Well, if it is politically advantageous I'd rather have tens of thousands of preventable deaths" would be channeling Trump.

there are legitimate avenues to criticize biden but how do you keep landing on ones that are just insane

---

TheRock1525 posted...

I can't believe you're getting mad about a guy saying "yeah I'd rather save lives even if it costs me the presidency."

in fairness, biden could also potentially save a ton of lives by getting trump out of the oval office. if biden says "i either save lives or i become president," he's presenting a false dilemma.

not sure if saving lives and letting trump remain president is a net positive in the end.

---

technically it's not that the trade-off is "there's a vaccine but trump wins", it's "there's a vaccine and it potentially helps push trump to a victory"

like i don't know why the fuck anyone is taking this as a literal scenario instead of just, y'know, "I'm not playing politics on a vaccine that could save tens of thousands of lives"

---

All Biden is doing there is showing basic human empathy for the millions of people who have family or friends who have died because of COVID-19 by saying, "Look, if we could magically end this tragedy tomorrow even if it would negatively impact my own political future, I would choose to in a heartbeat."

He'd be undercutting his central themes of "restoring the soul of America", return to empathy, etc. if he were to answer otherwise. Hell, like I said, answering otherwise would be what Trump would do which is exactly who he's running against. No politician - but especially Biden - can publicly make the argument of "Well, if you think long term 50,000 deaths now is actually less harm than my opponent's victory." It would be political suicide.

And this is before we even get into the fact this is all him talking hypothetical. Do you guys think he's some wizard who is speaking this into reality? There's not going to be a vaccine tomorrow. Trump's doing his damnedest to have the FDA rush something out by the election but I'll be entirely honest the fact that it's so nakedly political on his part means I for one wouldn't trust such a thing to be effective or even safe if it materialized under those circumstances unless someone credible like Fauci said, "No, this is the real deal."

---

Like for christ's sake is anyone seriously going to try to make the argument Biden be making the converse statement? That if there's a vaccine available before election day it should be blocked so that Biden can win?

Even if you believe Biden should do that (which is still insane), I can't imagine thinking he should say it. And of course a further level of unbelievable-ness is getting mad that he didn't.

---

I think this just illuminates what i fucking hate about Democrats.

Republican Party: Democrats hate you, they want to literally kill your children and imprison you, obliterating your way of life in their goals of total domination. Under no circumstances can they win.

Democratic Party: the wepublicans are bad, but Im pehfectwy happy for them to win as long as we all have fun

---

Grimlyn posted...

Like for christ's sake is anyone seriously going to try to make the argument Biden be making the converse statement? That if there's a vaccine available before election day it should be blocked so that Biden can win?

Even if you believe Biden should do that (which is still insane), I can't imagine thinking he should say it. And of course a further level of unbelievable-ness is getting mad that he didn't.

Does he need to make the converse statement to not say hed be cool if Trump wins?

---

He doesn't fucking say he's cool with Trump winning. Stop making up his words because you're frustrated.

---

Grimlyn posted...

He doesn't fucking say he's cool with Trump winning. Stop making up his words because you're frustrated.

Im literally responding to this quote in Corriks post, what the fuck are you talking about?

"Speaking to reporters after a campaign stop in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, Biden said first hed want to see what the scientists said about any potential vaccine. But he said he would like to see a vaccine tomorrow, even if if would cost him the election by helping President Donald Trump."

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

I think this just illuminates what i fucking hate about Democrats.

Republican Party: Democrats hate you, they want to literally kill your children and imprison you, obliterating your way of life in their goals of total domination. Under no circumstances can they win.

Democratic Party: the wepublicans are bad, but Im pehfectwy happy for them to win as long as we all have fun

So the solution to combatting divisiveness is to offer more divisiveness.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Im literally responding to this quote in Corriks post, what the fuck are you talking about?

Where the fuck is "I'm cool with Trump wining the election" in those words.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

But he said he would like to see a vaccine tomorrow, even if if would cost him the election by helping President Donald Trump."

Missed the part where he said he's "cool" with it.

---

TheRock1525 posted...

So the solution to combatting divisiveness is to offer more divisiveness.

If Trump is an existential threat, I dont think Im asking all that much for Democrats to be consistent about it.

---

He said hed like it even if it meant he lost.

Im not going to argue the semantics of the word cool, so lets just end this conversation.

---

TheRock1525 posted...

So the solution to combatting divisiveness is to offer more divisiveness.

"combatting divisiveness" is not what you need to do when dealing with donald fucking trump.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

If Trump is an existential threat, I dont think Im asking all that much for Democrats to be consistent about it.

They are. You're basically getting mad at Biden for showing basic human empathy in a purely hypothetical that is supposed to highlight one of his strengths.

---

Tony, you've gone off the deep end on this one

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

He said hed like it even if it meant he lost.

Im not going to argue the semantics of the word cool, so lets just end this conversation.

That's not even saying he'd like it. It could be a Pyrrhic victory in his mind, for all we know. He's just prioritizing saving lives he knows he can save in a pure hypothetical.

---

Biden says he would love to see a vaccine that could save tens of thousands of lives even if it costs him the election.

Yes. That is the correct response that fucking anybody should give and there is not a single way to twist that otherwise.

---

I don't know what he's supposed to say, here.

"Fuck no, no vaccine! I need to win, dammit! I hope you all fucking DIE!"

---

Grimlyn posted...

Biden says he would love to see a vaccine that could save tens of thousands of lives even if it costs him the election.

Yes. That is the correct response that fucking anybody should give and there is not a single way to twist that otherwise.

I dont think a single Republican politician would ever make this statement.

I hate that Dems (including Bernie, to be clear) constantly tie one hand behind their back while competing against people who literally want your constituents to die.

Sorry, but theres zero things Trump could do to make me say yeah he should do it and Dems lose and thats good.

---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

"combatting divisiveness" is not what you need to do when dealing with donald fucking trump.

It's the only thing you can do, because you need to sway wishy-washy independents to vote for Biden, and it's why he has a remarkably consistent lead. Playing off as "good guy Joe" who can bring the country back together is why there's no fluctuation in his leads, why his message is basic but works for what's needed in this election.

Like, Trump's favorability is back in the negative single digits, which is literally where it was before the pandemic. 200k people dead and Trump isn't any worse off, yet Biden's lead is pretty much the same. Meaning with or without the pandemic, he's remained 7-8 points ahead and routinely polls in or near the 50% against Trump, unlike Hillary. He's ahead in key states, too.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

I dont think a single Republican politician would ever make this statement.

I can think of several.

---

TheRock1525 posted...

and it's why he has a remarkably consistent lead

why do you keep saying this? Is there something remarkable about having a tenuous lead over the most unliked and disapproved president in our history?

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

I dont think a single Republican politician would ever make this statement.

You aren't at all thinking honestly at all then. Republicans love making platitudes they don't truly believe in.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

I dont think a single Republican politician would ever make this statement.

I hate that Dems (including Bernie, to be clear) constantly tie one hand behind their back while competing against people who literally want your constituents to die.

Sorry, but theres zero things Trump could do to make me say yeah he should do it and Dems lose and thats good.

It's a fucking hypothetical and it's, you know, really important that he NOT sound like a fucking Republican politician and go "No, fuck everybody that's sick, my presidency is more important."

I can't believe you're choosing this to blow up over.

He's not sitting there going "I HOPE DADDY TRUMP WINS" like you're trying to make it sound.

He's saying "It's really fucking important that we stop people from dying from this as soon as fucking possible so yeah I'd take a vaccine tomorrow even if it's not the best thing for me politically."

What the fuck is wrong with that?

It's actually disgusting to me that somebody is sitting here going "No, fuck everybody dying of coronavirus, and fuck Biden for not saying that."

---

I dont think Im blowing up as much as opining that the Democratic Party is generally pathetic, and this shouldnt be a controversial statement.

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

why do you keep saying this? Is there something remarkable about having a tenuous lead over the most unliked and disapproved president in our history?

It's not tenuous in the slightest.

And you keep saying he's the most disapproved president yet his polling is above former presidents like Jimmy Carter and George HW Bush at this point in their presidencies.

---

How is it pathetic to want to save lives, exactly?

Why are you okay with people continuing to die from this?

---

StealThisSheen posted...

It's actually disgusting to me that somebody is sitting here going "No, f*** everybody dying of coronavirus, and f*** Biden for not saying that."

Where did i say this? Lmao why do both you and Gmun think i said this? You guys need to chill, this might explain the intense reaction.

Its literally a hypothetical, does he really have to add yes even if Trump wins to agree that a vaccine would be good?

---

Like Tony, you're literally arguing not to do the right thing - specifically, arguing to toss away tens of thousands of lives - just to help your political prospects which probably doesn't actually hinder just on this in the first place......... do you really not see the problem there?

---

StealThisSheen posted...

How is it pathetic to want to save lives, exactly?

Why are you okay with people continuing to die from this?

Grimlyn posted...

Like Tony, you're literally arguing not to do the right thing - specifically, arguing to toss away tens of thousands of lives - just to help your political prospects which probably doesn't actually hinder just on this in the first place......... do you really not see the problem there?

Youre both being stupid putting words in my mouth and this discussion is over.

---

I mean, it's also an impossible hypothetical that is beyond Trump's control (dude himself isn't the lab making a vaccine lmfao)

It's like if I said, Hypothetical: Wealth inequality was ended overnight, the effects of climate change dissappeared and the planet was in a pre-Industrial Revolution state climate-wise/atmospherically, meaningful police and criminal justice reforms are enacted and enforced, the police is demilitarized, the Dems - which now only consist of Progressive Caucus members - gain a veto-proof majority in the House and Senate. But somehow Trump wins.

Yes, that is absolutely absurd and impossible but so is "a safe and effective COVID vaccine comes out to the public tomorrow."

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Youre both being stupid putting words in my mouth and this discussion is over.

you saying that in this argument of all times is just absolutely mindblowing

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Its literally a hypothetical, does he really have to add yes even if Trump wins to agree that a vaccine would be good?

Yes? It's an acknowledgement that Biden isn't simply going to do something good because it would be good, but he would do something good even if it ended poorly for him.

Also, do we even know how the reporter framed the question? Did the reporter possibly ask "would you be okay with a vaccine tomorrow even if it helped Trump?"

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

Where did i say this? Lmao why do both you and Gmun think i said this? You guys need to chill, this might explain the intense reaction.

Its literally a hypothetical, does he really have to add yes even if Trump wins to agree that a vaccine would be good?

Because he's driving in how important a vaccine is, and it's a hypothetical. He's showing it's more important than him by saying "Yes, even if it kills my chances, I'd rather save the lives tomorrow than not."

And you're moaning over this and calling it pathetic, so what are we supposed to assume you're trying to say, exactly?

---

Grimlyn posted...

you saying that in this argument of all times is just absolutely mindblowing

you apparently missed the actual quote i was responding to, so rectify that, thx

---

Also the point that he adds in "even if it costs me the election" is highlighting the contrast between him and Trump because everyone knows the same can't be said the other way.

It'd be more effective if someone from the press were to ask Trump some kind of reversed variant to watch him give a completely fucked up answer to make the contrast even more explicit but =/

---

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

you apparently missed the actual quote i was responding to, so rectify that, thx

You were specifically ignoring the context and saying "He's saying he's fine with Trump winning," when the context is a really big fucking deal.

---

"I'd be happy with a vaccine even if it helped trump"

"I'd be happy with a vaccine"

"I'd be happy with a vaccine"

He's saying that he'd be happy with specifically the EXISTENCE OF A VACCINE even if it wasn't politically helpful.

It's like saying "I'd be happy if Donald Trump solved all wars even if it hurts me politically". He's just saying that he wants a good thing to happen (vaccine) whether or not it specifically helps him out.

---

Like if Hilary has cured cancer in September 2016 you know trump would have been vocally upset about it.

---

I'd love Trump to give us M4A even if it cost us the election!

---

Grimlyn posted...

I'd love Trump to give us M4A even if it cost us the election!

Real talk I actually don't think that's nearly enough of a trade given the judicial appointments would just tear it down afterwards. >_>

---

xp1337 posted...

Real talk I actually don't think that's enough of a trade given the judicial appointments would just tear it down afterwards. >_>

What if he gets a bunch of states together and ratifies it as an Amendment?

---

I mean the point is as FD puts it, that it's not a statement of trading but a statement of desire for [Outcome A] regardless of [Outcome B]

because again, Outcome A isn't the only factor in whether or not Outcome B happens.

---

A constitutional amendment is probably not the ideal way to enact complicated policy like M4A that might need to be adjusted later!

---

I had forgotten about a lot of these incidents:

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/09/everyone-knows-its-true/616138/

---