2020 US Election (Part One)

Status
Not open for further replies.
There's just a lot more things that could go wrong. No USA.

Korea
Taiwan
India vs China
Russia/Ukraine

What are you even talking about? Contrary to Commodores suggestion, EVERYTHING about our foreign policy is about our own self interest, not to service some objective 'good'. And we aren't preventing any China India conflict and backing two capitalist countries that fit our international goals doesn't make up for any of the 'wrong' we committed in screwing over other countries. We don't need to play along with the everyday propaganda of states, we can look at the world for what it is and see the benefits and problems with all parties.
 
I feel obligated to point out the Uighur situation at this point.

"What we did to the Native Americans is different because reasons", I guess?

Contrary to Commodores suggestion, EVERYTHING about our foreign policy is about our own self interest, not to service some objective 'good'.

Yeah, all of US foreign policy is designed around the goal of allowing the US to consume 25% of the world's resources while comprising less than 5% of the world's population. Commodore says "let's go isolationist" but then if he had to pay isolationist gas prices he'd be the first one ranting about how we need to nuke the hell out of [country].
 
Again I'm not trying to say one is better or worse, or that they are the same. But America is no moral good guy vs. anywhere else. Yes what China is doing to the Uighurs is despicable. However our prison population reaally doesn't allow us to point out how other countries oppress minorities with a straight face, not to mention our treatment of asylum seekers and caging kids and pretty much giving them up to sex abusers and child traffickers. So we're not China or Saudi Arabia, yes that is a good thing, but let's not pretend we are that much better than them either. Again when you say our ideals, what ideals really set us that much apart? Women's rights pale in comparison to many places, our healthcare is a joke when the rest of the rich world isn't bankrupting people who need medical help, and our government clearly infringes on our privacy right up there at similar levels as our favorite boogeyman. Sure we don't censor sites on the internet and arrest journalists, or kill them like the Saudis, but we allow corporations to buy politicians and influence the media. We are not the leader of the free world by some moral authority, just might. We are Rome. There is no 'ideal' chosen country/people we should look to follow as the just and 'best' hegemon, we just care about our own interests same as any would. We've done good, bad, same as the rest. But the world has every right to laugh at our gaffes and frown at our big stick wagging and, like you said, destabilizing places to the benefit of our corporations.

Also there are a lot of crap governments out there, lets not conflate them with the 'ideals' of the people they rule over.

I pretty much agree with you here, just that the ideals I'm talking about enshrined in the declaration of independence and the constitution are a step above what many (not all by a long shot anymore) governments and peoples try to live up to, and again I'm not in denial that we are quickly slipping into a kleptocracy again. I'm not cynical as to take all human action as nothing but self interest unless we are getting philosophical here and away from politics. I'm certainly not voting for just myself these last ten years. I have health insurance that is decent. I'm done with college. I have shelter and food. I am trying to vote for people who want to make that a reality for the rest of the nation and the world.

"What we did to the Native Americans is different because reasons", I guess?



Yeah, all of US foreign policy is designed around the goal of allowing the US to consume 25% of the world's resources while comprising less than 5% of the world's population. Commodore says "let's go isolationist" but then if he had to pay isolationist gas prices he'd be the first one ranting about how we need to nuke the hell out of [country].

Yea and that kind of thing is going on now in 2019 almost 80 years after formal empire level exterminations were supposed to stop. Right?
 
You know, the whole "he who is without sin cast the first stone" thing.
That's a Christian thing... most countries in the world aren't majority-Christian... particularly not the ones who would be looking for handouts from the US.

However, I think you and I probably agree that showing Trump getting mocked by other countries isn't the kind of thing that would erode his support. In fact I'd say that kind of thing would tend to make his supporters identify with him even more, because that's how they feel, like they are getting mocked and belittled by people who think they are better than them.
How can you say that with Harris now officially out and several others hanging by threads?
Because this is what you are focused on
and this is what I am focused on
significantly
We agree on the former... we disagree on the latter.
 
It's also worth remembering that when Jesus made the comment about first stones, he was defending a woman who was accused of adultery, not of levelling the city with cruise missiles.
 
Jet propelled stones then. ;)
 
What are you even talking about? Contrary to Commodores suggestion, EVERYTHING about our foreign policy is about our own self interest, not to service some objective 'good'. And we aren't preventing any China India conflict and backing two capitalist countries that fit our international goals doesn't make up for any of the 'wrong' we committed in screwing over other countries. We don't need to play along with the everyday propaganda of states, we can look at the world for what it is and see the benefits and problems with all parties.

Without America though there's lots of things that could be worse. Say they went isolationist again after WW2.

Does the Soviet Union collapse(?

Crappy regimes they prop up. Free fodder for the USSR.

Middle East. Saudi regime collapse. Fairly awful state. It's replacement would likely be ISIS 2.0 with a lot of Petro dollars.

Liberal Western Europe.

Probably wouldn't be a thing. No NATO.

Korea. Communist 1950.

So depends on when you stop the USA being the big bad. If it's not them it would be someone else. Whoever that someone else is

Post cold war maybe, foreign interventions like Iraq are a disaster. 9/11 still happens, USA probably still goes into Afghanistan.

It kind of feeds into the point no matter what USA does people are gonna complain especially the left. They intervened in 1995/99 in former Yugoslavia. I remember the international socialists sided with the Serbs commiting genocide. If USA does nothing they're enabling genocide. If they intervene they're imperialists. If the cut a deal with any crappy regime they're also bad. If they use sanctions they're starving women and children.

It's literally no win with the far left no matter what the USA does or doesn't do.

I think that's what they're referring to. Some things were obviously stupid even at the time like Iraq. These forums were funny 2004.
 
So, I am taking a certain amount of ironic pleasure in the various "takes" on Kamala Harris dropping out of the race thus leaving the frontrunners all white, without mentioning that black voters seem to be solidly behind Joe Biden.
 
So, I am taking a certain amount of ironic pleasure in the various "takes" on Kamala Harris dropping out of the race thus leaving the frontrunners all white, without mentioning that black voters seem to be solidly behind Joe Biden.

I read an article about this by an African American.

Basically they hate Trump and want him gone. They think rightly or wrongly a white male is the best candidate to beat him.

Nominating a women didn't go well last time, Obama won but caused a backlash and was essentially a dead duck president.

Dems haven't nominated a white male since 2004. A younger white male would probably be ideal. Buttigieg is gay and that's not resonating with black voters. He also has the lowest numbers vs Trump in Wisconsin iirc. Gays not gonna fly in the mid west.

They're well aware of the reasons the Dems can lose. They see Biden as the best chance to win. Gaffes don't really matter (see Bush/Trump).
 
I think there's a lot more going on than that, but also "white male to beat Trump" is a very weird identity lane for Dems to take considering:

A few more black voters turning out in Detroit/Milwaukee/Pittsburgh means Trump loses in 2016
2018 was propelled by women defecting in droves to Dems
 
Obama won but caused a backlash and was essentially a dead duck president.
Who, if could have run for a third term, would have kicked Trump's butt. IMHO
 
I think there's a lot more going on than that, but also "white male to beat Trump" is a very weird identity lane for Dems to take considering:

A few more black voters turning out in Detroit/Milwaukee/Pittsburgh means Trump loses in 2016
2018 was propelled by women defecting in droves to Dems

Well that's what the article was about. 39% of Blacks support Biden.
Warren's numbers are dropping, Buttigieg is surging and apparently he's very highly rated in one of those early states.

Warren was to wishy washy on healthcare.
 
I think Obama would have won reasonably solidly but not in a landslide. Obama was already seeing his approval rating rise pretty dang high as Trump was running, and would have turned out his coalition more effectively than Hillary, but he really started to achieve sainthood after the election, and I think some of the anger at "same old politics" or "Dem establishment" would have existed with him running for a 3rd term.

Well that's what the article was about. 39% of Blacks support Biden.
Warren's numbers are dropping, Buttigieg is surging and apparently he's very highly rated in one of those early states.

Warren was to wishy washy on healthcare.

Yes, but there's more to it than strategy. There are a lot of elements to Biden's lead beyond "he's our best chance to beat Trump" and a lot of Dems are actually worried he is not best positioned to beat Trump. Biden isn't like, running away with electability polling. His black support comes from a number of reasons. And it has to be noted is very generational - millennial black voters are not really all in on Biden.
 
I think Obama would have won reasonably solidly but not in a landslide. Obama was already seeing his approval rating rise pretty dang high as Trump was running, and would have turned out his coalition more effectively than Hillary. but he really started to achieve sainthood after the election, and I think some of the anger at "same old politics" or "Dem establishment" would have existed with him running for a 3rd term.

Yep Obama had charisma and in 2008 he was perceived as being anti establishment.

The ideal candidate would be a charismatic heterosexual white male aged 40-60 IMHO.

Dems don't have that. Trump's support in places that matter as of yesterday had gone up with impeachment inquiry. Last I heard he was slightly ahead in Wisconsin.
 
I don't know, I just don't buy that a white dude is the best candidate from an identity viewpoint. Primary voters are very different from election day voters, and whoever it is has to basically improve from Hillary on two of three lanes of midwest/rust belt black voters, midwest/southwest/east coast suburban women, or students/young adults. A white male can do that, but acting like that is the best play from a strictly demographic standpoint seems very very presumptive at best.
 
Primary voters are very different from election day voters,
Ding Ding Ding Ding.
All the models I've worked with show a heterosexual white male aged 40-60 would do well against Trump in the battle ground states.
But there's no way one can win the nomination. IMO.
 
I don't know, I just don't buy that a white dude is the best candidate from an identity viewpoint. Primary voters are very different from election day voters, and whoever it is has to basically improve from Hillary on two of three lanes of midwest/rust belt black voters, midwest/southwest/east coast suburban women, or students/young adults. A white male can do that, but acting like that is the best play from a strictly demographic standpoint seems very very presumptive at best.

I said ideal candidate including charisma.

None of the candidates really have that at this point. The charisma voids at least are dropping out.

Charisma and name recognition are the most important factors IMHO. Policies don't really matter even if elected they're gonna struggle to get a lot of them over the line.
 
Ding Ding Ding Ding.
All the models I've worked with show a heterosexual white male aged 40-60 would do well against Trump in the battle ground states.
But there's no way one can win the nomination. IMO.

Circular firing squad.
 
Primaries aren't the same as generals so I don't see how that is circular.
 
Interesting. I’ve heard technocratic political models are always very reliable – because technocrats really understand people and take all that fundamental human rational and put it at the very cutting edge of our ability to compute relevant performance measures in breakdown of logically selected dimensions. That’s why Hillary won by a landslide for example.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom