politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
Straw man arguments like this are what makes it so obvious Cornell West is full of shit. There isn't a single damn person who ever said that, but Cornell West wants you to think it's a majority opinion that he's fighting against.
Back in the real world, we recognize Biden has taken some serious steps in the right direction regarding infrastructure investment, empowering labor, reducing student loan debt, and increasing the portion of taxes paid by the wealthy, among other things. In the real world, we recognize this is as far as he can go with a razor thin Senate majority that depends on the votes of Manchin and Sinema, and we recognize he now has a Republican House to stymy every one of his priorities.
To get progressive policies passed, elect more Democrats to the House and Senate and reelect Joe Biden
U just created a straw man, to defeat his straw man. Well done sir.
How
I appreciate you
The typical straw man argument creates the illusion of having refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition through the covert replacement of it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and the subsequent refutation of that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the opponent's proposition.
You assume that West has created a straw man. He claims that the economy could be better. Whether it’s true or not is up to the reader. In order for it to be a straw man, it would have to be untrue. If it is true, then it is not a straw man.
Let’s assume that his statement is true. That the economy could be better. By treating it as untrue, you create the straw man. You then proceed to refute his assertion by listing Biden’s economic accomplishments, thus tearing down the straw man you created.
Remember, this is all dependent on whether West’s statement is true or not. If the reader thinks it true. Then it is not a straw man.
You heavily edited this after I responded, so here's my edit. Cornell West is saying "THEY are saying this is the best economy you can get. I don't think this is the best it can get!" The first statement, literally no one is saying that. It's an argument he invented to argue against. It is not true. The second statement is something literally everyone agrees with. Everyone would like to be doing better financially. Cornell West made up an argument and then knocked it down with something everyone agrees with.
To be fair, I don’t think the use of the Straw Man Fallacy is appropriate concerning the economy. Because a good or bad economy is open to interpretation. But you used the term, creating a de facto “straw man.” You then refuted it. I’m not defending West or his statement. And I find it fascinating how you were able to do that. Thus, my comment.
Edit: I am not a logician. This is just how I interpreted it.