1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

2020 US Election (Part Two)

Discussion in 'Off-Topic' started by Lexicus, Mar 11, 2020.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. AdrienIer

    AdrienIer Deity

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2010
    Messages:
    3,379
    Location:
    Paris
    Splitting the US, whatever the borders you choose, would be messy. India/Pakistan/Bangladesh style maybe ?
    The divide in the US is mostly urban/rural (except in new england where the rural areas are sometimes democratic too) : while Tallahassee is in the middle of very red areas it is a rather left wing place.
    BTW that urban/rural divide is not only a US thing. Impoverished rural areas are voting for the far right in great numbers in europe as well.
     
    Kyriakos likes this.
  2. Kyriakos

    Kyriakos Alien spiral maker

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2003
    Messages:
    59,023
    Location:
    Thessalonike, The Byzantine Empire
    If India could secure a corridor (a very ridiculous one, btw) in the most populated region of the planet, I am sure US could manage it in what is mostly empty space.

    Assuming the following is accurate:



    It is basically coastal vs inland and (mostly) as you said urban vs rural.
    I think a main issue border-wise could be Mississippi and Alabama. Won't allow CSA to form again :eek:
     
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2020
  3. KaibaCorp

    KaibaCorp Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2020
    Messages:
    53
    Gender:
    Male
    Paris Climate Accord:
    In a 2017 report, the UN said:
    “Political, industrial and civil leaders are strengthening and implementing the Paris Agreement on Climate Change. Yet current state pledges cover no more than a third of the emission reductions needed, creating a dangerous gap, which even growing momentum from non-state actors cannot close.”

    Few of the signatories even made plans to reduce emissions in accordance with their Paris commitments. Only seven countries are on track to meet their emission targets. Meanwhile, the United States has cut more total carbon dioxide emissions than any other nation. From 2008 to 2018, it fell by 9% when the rest of the world increased their emissions by 17%. China’s emissions growth alone wiped out America’s reductions in 2017 by more than threefold. Emissions fell slightly in the U.S. in 2019 as well. The Chinese government is a shining beacon of lax environmental and labor standards. I’ll believe they’ll lead the way to a green future when I see it. Until then, they’ll continue to contribute 30% of the world’s pollution (the most of any nation, second place is U.S. at 15% https://www.activesustainability.com/environment/top-5-most-polluting-countries/)

    Not exactly a dumpster fire backing out of this agreement almost none of the world is even abiding by. Not a very effective agreement to care strongly about.
    JPCOA
    Not paying Iran to have to secretly develop nuclear weapons is not a shimmering example of positive foreign policy. You express distress about Saudi but not Iran? I’m not sure how anyone who looks into Suleimani’s record wouldn’t recognize him as a Warhawk terrorist godfather type. Labeling him a “non-belligerent” is either wrong or flat out dated. Definitely not a “strike” on his foreign policy record.
    WHO
    Trump stopped sending them money after it came out they ignored Taiwan’s warnings about the virus and increasing perception (worldwide) as deferent to China despite China trying to conceal the outbreak and silencing whistle blowers. Talk about downplaying and exacerbating. It’s a bad thing the country isn’t pouring money into this thing anymore?
    The New York TimesTrump Slammed the W.H.O. Over Coronavirus. He's Not Alone.
    NATO
    NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg gave credit to Trump for getting Canada and Euro nations to pay up and meet the 2% GDP contributions agreed upon in 2014.
    NATO’s continued existence will be determined by whether the other members pay up (so far only Greece, Estonia, the UK and Poland meet that 2% goal - latest numbers I could find).
    Trump is encouraging NATO members to contribute to its success (seems anti-Russian to me btw), and he’s making sure the nation is being paid fairly for its role as muscle to all these other wealthy countries (Germany, Lexumberg, South Korea, Japan to name a few) who have been freed to spend their money and resources on other things because they have the US to defend them.
    Taking a transactional lens to these agreements is shrewd, not a “dumpster fire”.
    Middle East
    Moving the embassy to Jerusalem is undoubtedly controversial as hell and a whole wormhole of discussion on its own. The issue resulting being “not looking unbiased” doesn’t make sense to me as a drawback because no political entity/nation involved is unbiased on the particular ongoing conflict.
    Removing troops from Syria and Afghanistan (pending compliance from the peace agreement with the Taliban - an achievement in itself) and meeting with Kim Jon-Un to communicate about denuclearization aren’t exactly “dumpster fire” bad either.
     
  4. El_Machinae

    El_Machinae Colour vision since 2018 Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2005
    Messages:
    44,928
    Location:
    Pale Blue Dot youtube=wupToqz1e2g
    Yeah, the Paris Accord wasn't enough. But let's not pretend that Trump left it for any reason other than his denier base. Obama ramped up fracking, which was probably a huge game-winning move on the geopolitical level, but also helped reduce emissions so much.

    But mentioning China and the USA in the same sentence is going to be chock full of statistical assumptions. As long as the Chinese households are emitting much less than American households and are investing more into the pivot, it's pointing the finger at someone for doing the same thing you're doing hypocritically.

    Won't disagree about NATO spending, but turning on all your allies while trying to create an economic ring to contain China was hella stupid. And lying about every negotiation just burned bridges while praying that the economic might of the USA would allow him to carry the day. It didn't. The rich got richer, and debt went up faster than growth.
     
  5. KaibaCorp

    KaibaCorp Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2020
    Messages:
    53
    Gender:
    Male
    Thanks for clearing that up
     
  6. EdmundIronside

    EdmundIronside Challenge Accepted

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2017
    Messages:
    597
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI.
    You could count all environmental stuff as international, as global warming is a global issue.
    I've long been in favor of the climate change tariffs on nations who do not reduce their emissions.

    "Joe Biden says that his plan for climate change would see the US energy sector go carbon-free by 2035. This would allow the country to become a net zero emitter by 2050.
    Achieving net zero means that any carbon emitted by industry, transport or other sources is balanced out by removing an equivalent amount from the atmosphere, through, for example, planting forests.
    Mr Biden has ambitious ideas to revolutionise transport in the US using electric vehicles and trains. He also wants to build 1.5 million sustainable homes and housing units.
    His plan would not just benefit the US, say supporters, it would help keep global temperatures down.
    Joe Biden is proposing that the US adopt climate change tariffs on nations who do not reduce their emissions. Biden's international climate plan, if anything, is even more ambitious than his domestic plan."

    https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-54395534
     
    Kyriakos likes this.
  7. EdmundIronside

    EdmundIronside Challenge Accepted

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2017
    Messages:
    597
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI.
    I believe some states had this idea back in 1861, it didn't go so well!
     
  8. AdrienIer

    AdrienIer Deity

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2010
    Messages:
    3,379
    Location:
    Paris
    A lot of black people live in the south, and no one wants them to live in a fully Trumpist country. Also that map may be misleading because some of the areas are more swingy and have shifted in the last 10 years, so it would be premature to base everything on the political and social situation at this exact time. There's also the fact that not all counties are equally populated. So a single blue dot in an ocean of red could be a small indian reserve where the few voters support the democrats, or a huge city with a million inhabitants.

    Basically I think the US isn't splitting in two anytime soon. The most likely scenario, if things go sour, is a split by a small part of the US like the pacific states. But it's still super unlikely.
     
    Kyriakos likes this.
  9. KaibaCorp

    KaibaCorp Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2020
    Messages:
    53
    Gender:
    Male
    Trump in his own words said leaving was an economic decision, and the economy pre-Covid would indicate he was serious about valuing job creation and growing the economy.
    Fracking absolutely was a great move by Obama (Trump at a rally last night played a video of Biden and Harris disavowing fracking lol).
    Measuring emissions by households only is strange and just one way to cut the pie. Look at the carbon footprint of the entire country (household + industry + transportation + energy etc.) China is blowing the US away. US also has contributed much more innovation to green tech than China ever has.
    “Turning in your allies” is pretty aggressive. If that’s what asking another party to hold up their end of an agreement is, then Biden will probably be turning on his allies a lot too if he wins.
     
  10. Kyriakos

    Kyriakos Alien spiral maker

    Joined:
    Oct 15, 2003
    Messages:
    59,023
    Location:
    Thessalonike, The Byzantine Empire
     
  11. Farm Boy

    Farm Boy You gave me my own tail?

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2010
    Messages:
    19,266
    The blue band in the rural south is basically in competition with parts of Appalachia for the poorest swath of the country(discounting Puerto Rico, oofda, they've been treated less well then they deserve). It's first on the list of what I'm "whining" about when I bring up rural poverty, which the more bigoted trolls then read as "hates city people" or "focuses on rural white quasi-fascist issues" or whatever the misinfoword of the hour is.

    But no. The US isn't splitting despite efforts spent to megaphone the most belligerent of each party. Gotta have those sweet sweet rageclick dollars.
     
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2020
    KaibaCorp and AdrienIer like this.
  12. EdmundIronside

    EdmundIronside Challenge Accepted

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2017
    Messages:
    597
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Grand Rapids, MI.
    That is one of the accusations Trump has leveled at Biden!

    I feel like you have an answer you want to give to this question. If that is the case, do tell.
     
  13. Drakle

    Drakle King

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2014
    Messages:
    674
    Haha no. He didn't seriously change the course of the economy post-Obama, and the minor differences come down to the Republican congress forgetting about deficits. But he still hasn't done any infrastructure despite promising it for years, he hasn't brought back jobs, and his trade wars are disastrous and has led to the government just underwriting agriculture, to the tune of billions. Far more than the bailouts that saved the auto industry which conservatives squealed about. And Obama didn't cause the auto crisis, but Trump single handily did cause the agriculture crisis.

    And Covid is part of the economy. He literally couldn't do the very floor basics. He isn't pressing the Senate to do a stimulus deal. He is just helping cause chaos and delay.
     
    hobbsyoyo and Socrates99 like this.
  14. Birdjaguar

    Birdjaguar Hanafubuki Retired Moderator Supporter

    Joined:
    Dec 24, 2001
    Messages:
    40,093
    Location:
    Albuquerque, NM
    The breaking up of the US into two or more smaller nations has been "a thing" since the 1970s. It is not going to happen. It is a fringe thing and there are not enough of those idiots to make it real. We are far too integrated and connected through infrastructure and family for any workable break up to happen.
     
  15. aelf

    aelf Ashen One

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2005
    Messages:
    16,747
    Location:
    Tir ná Lia
    You mean split into three countries, right?

    Spoiler :
     
    Kyriakos likes this.
  16. Ajidica

    Ajidica High Quality Person

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2006
    Messages:
    20,672
    First off, quoting British Petroleum in a discussion about climate change is a galaxy-brain move.
    Second, the US reduction in total carbon emissions is frequently misleading as we are so large a country (and put out so much carbon dioxide), a 1% drop in our emissions could in total terms be vastly larger than a small country with a more aggressive carbon plan.
    Third, each US individual puts out over twice the CO2 than the average European or Chinese person, and the Chinese stats are skewed because products made in China for shipment to the US are counted in China's annual CO2 pollution
    https://www.climatechangenews.com/2020/10/06/us-emissions-four-years-president-trump/
    Fourth, while US emissions have been going down, the majority of that decline was due to policies implemented by Obama or state-level initiatives.
    https://www.climatechangenews.com/2020/10/06/us-emissions-four-years-president-trump/
    That China has a lot of pollution now in no way disproves the statements and policies from the Chinese government indicating their quite aggressive carbon reduction goals.

    And how much of that backsliding is because the United States isn't making climate change a major diplomatic issue?
    And should we not do something critical to the survival of us on this pale blue dot simply because other countries are being lazy? Whatever happened to the good sort of American exceptionalism? "We do things not because they are easy, but because they are hard."

    Where did this idea that sanction relief is paying Iran come from? Many sanctions were put on Iran to deter them from a military nuclear program. When Iran agreed to the JCPOA which effectively ended their miliary nuclear program, it makes sense those sanctions would be lifted. Plus, Iran has to be given some incentive sign on to the JCPOA.
    Given how terrible Saudi Arabia is, and the other gulf slave-states, I have a slight preference toward working Iran in the region. Iran, after all, is a sort-of democracy with changes in power coming from (sort-of) democratic elections.

    Did we end up in war with Iran when I wasn't looking?
    Regardless, the killing of Soleimani raises serious concerns over its legality under both international law/UN Charter obligations and, for you probably most importantly, under US domestic law.
    https://www.justsecurity.org/67949/...-soleimani-its-lawfulness-and-why-it-matters/
    https://www.lawfareblog.com/was-soleimani-killing-assassination
    https://www.lawfareblog.com/irrelevance-imminence
    Targeted killings of uniformed military officers opens up a number of serious problems, none of which look good for the United States.
    Look at it this way, the fall of 1990, when the United States was imposing an armed blockade on Iraq and openly calling for a military invasion, would it have been appropriate for Iraq to engage in a targeted killing of a US general on the grounds the general was planning hostile acts against Iraq and Iraqi servicemembers? Should Ukraine be allowed to assassinate Russian military officers on the ground Russian military officers have a relation with the rebels in eastern Ukraine who are fighting Ukrainian government forces?

    Yeah, the WHO screwed up its initial response to Covid. Guess what, so did the entire rest of the world.
    As far as withdrawing from the WHO...
    https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/11/trump-who-withdrawal-china/616475/

    Not since the 60s has NATO been about military defense. The 2% GDP contribution is pointless and everyone in NATO knows that. Should a shooting war in Europe break out, the presence of another Dutch armored unit, or Belgian squadron, won't make a lick of difference. There is some concern about European military readiness as part of peacekeeping or limited military intervention under an EU/UN umbrella, but that is pretty minor as any European military deployment will be backed up by France. Every European country could cut their military budgets to $0 and NATO would still be a good deal for the United States. If Europe relies on the United States for military defense, it means they have vastly more limited options for pursuing and independent foreign policy. (Because France trying to resurrect francafrique gets annoying fast.)
    Plus, the best strategy for containing China is to double down hard on the transatlantic alliance and break Europe off from China; getting into stupid political fights over GDP contribution is damaging to that. From a 'transactional' perspective, NATO and the transatlantic alliance is far stronger when France and Germany are emphatically defending the alliance, than openly wondering if it is dead while paying for a couple more tanks.

    Oh, and Japanese rearmament is a bad idea that will screw over the fragile anti-China alliance we have been trying to cultivate in SEA.

    The Syria withdrawal as carried out was bad because it was a) done without any public discussion of our role in the Middle East and b) damaged America's ability to work with local forces in any conflict in the future. The Kurds fought and died alongside US forces against ISIS, and we subsequently left them hanging because Trump got suckered by Erdogan. Now, should US forces be in Syria? That is an entirely different question and should be discussed both in public and by congress; but the way we treated the Kurds was terrible.
    Oh, and US troops are still in Syria.
    https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/18/us/politics/us-troops-syria-russia.html

    As far as Afghanistan goes, perhaps it is as the old Vulcan proverb says, "Only Nixon can go to China", but until we hear more I'm not taking a stance on it. To my knowledge, nothing has come out regarding what Afghanistan will look like and whether international forces will pull out.

    Nothing has happened from North Korea. We started with the "fire and fury" war scare, then Trump held hands with Kim and wrote love letters to each other. North Korea got a massive diplomatic coup by having the President of the United States meet personally with Kim. The United States got in return, nothing. North Kora toned down its rhetoric, but is still pursuing its nuclear weapons program; and recent information suggests they are making substantial progress on warhead miniaturization and reentry technologies.
    EDIT: Forgot link
    https://www.armscontrol.org/act/2020-09/news/un-experts-see-north-korean-nuclear-gains
     
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2020
  17. EgonSpengler

    EgonSpengler Deity

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2014
    Messages:
    6,423
    Gender:
    Male
    Can we ally with China or Iran/Syria instead? I don't wanna eat Russian food the rest of my life.
     
    Birdjaguar likes this.
  18. Drakle

    Drakle King

    Joined:
    Jun 28, 2014
    Messages:
    674
    Biden is now doing better with Likely Voter screens, than simple registered voter polls. In terms of past polling, it was nearly always the reverse, with Democrats having more people leaning to them, but many of them were unsteady voters who might not turn out. Which forced Democrats to spend a lot of effort into trying to turn them out. Which sometimes they did, and sometimes they failed to and lost.

    Now Democrats have the advantage of numbers, AND of a possible turnout advantage.

    Iowa poll (Ernst is Republican incumbent, Greenfield is Democratic challenger)


    So an even Iowa race (which Trump won by nearly 10 points in 2016), which improves with both high turn out, and even more in low turnout.

    An example of a 538 modified poll with the screens.


    Two reasons. Part is the education realignment, as Democrats have lost some of the lower education WWC voters (Biden has still clawed back a lot of them from Trump) whose turnout is uncertain, but also gained with educated white voters (even more than Clinton) whose turnout is more certain usually.

    The second part. The early vote. Democrats are locking in a lot of votes in early, voters who might be weighed downwards as less likely to vote by pollsters, normally. But since they have already voted, they are locked in. The Iowa poll

    So Republicans now have to chase up a lot of potentially uncertain voters, while Democrats can focus their massive cash lead on fewer remaining Democrats, and persuasion. And the Democratic floor is much higher, while Republicans could just have the bottom fall out and get swept away. Like in 2014 where Democratic turnout just completely failed to show up, and they lost a ton of races they shouldn't have.


    The evidence for a Trump victory is getting pretty thin. The Polling is awful, the early voting seems pretty bad for him, he completely wasted his cash, while Biden and lower ballot D are fundraising up a storm, and he doesn't even seem to be trying to recover, by cancelling debates, refusing stimulus and talking exclusively to his base (who are locked in and don't matter), instead of the swing voters he needs.

    This isn't to say the specific example of Iowa, will certainly be Biden and Greenfield. The Upshot polling of the race is Biden/Ernst so the Senate race is still a tossup. This poll doesn't rate locked in voters higher than people who say they are certain to vote, which could bias things to Democrats in other polls (or foretell a landslide). But if Trump is losing Iowa, he has almost certainly lost the nation.


    Also, Rudy Guliani screws up some more.



    Poor image quality. But putting his hands down his pants, just after being interviewed by a teen journalist (in the film Borat 2). She is actually in her early 20s, but he is told she is in her teens, and even then, jerking it in front of a reporter of any age is pretty bad.

    Also right after he does it, Borat comes into the room and says this.

     
    Last edited: Oct 21, 2020
    hobbsyoyo and Hrothbern like this.
  19. aelf

    aelf Ashen One

    Joined:
    Sep 16, 2005
    Messages:
    16,747
    Location:
    Tir ná Lia
    China is the superior choice by far, in that case.
     
    EgonSpengler likes this.
  20. IglooDude

    IglooDude Enforcing Rule 34 Retired Moderator Supporter

    Joined:
    Oct 2, 2003
    Messages:
    22,214
    Location:
    Igloo, New Hampshire
    I for one welcome our new Italian overlords.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page