2020 US Election (Part Two)

[Gorbles]

Well, alright, there some "externality" topics, ranging from dumping plastic in the ocean to MAD, where there is a fervently shared general interest, and globalist perspectives are warranted.

But on recent topics like trade wars, world public opinion holds almost unanimously that the US should elect a pushover to replace our feral president. This sends me an entirely different signal on what to vote for.

Trade is complicated, and I'm not an expert on it, but I'd imagine there are a lot of informed opinions both inside and externally to the US that would, uh, disagree with your characterisation of the current POTUS. This is the problem with voting just to stick it to a demographic you've personally-identified as an "Other".

Rejecting an opinion just because it comes from a non-American is asinine. Two people could have the same idea, and you are of the opinion that you'd reject it purely based on who it came from.

 

[Ajidica]

Was Cheney and his cohorts not part of the Deep State? The black sites, torture program, cherry picked intel, Colin Powell holding vials of 'anthrax' at the UN, Patriot Act and spying on everyone, etc... Where was the intel community on all that? They were running the programs. Does that sound like a conspiracy to lie us into a war?

So the Deep State is now democratically elected politicians? All of the stuff you listed was pushed from the White House, or do you think the security services should push back and work against a democratically elected administration if the security services disagree with the administration? You can't just say everything you don't like is part of the 'deep state'.

 

[Tristan_C]

So the Deep State is now democratically elected politicians? All of the stuff you listed was pushed from the White House, or do you think the security services should push back and work against a democratically elected administration if the security services disagree with the administration? You can't just say everything you don't like is part of the 'deep state'.

I think Halliburton and the no-bid contracts would qualify, but these issues are all treated differently, by all of us, depending on who is the target. During the 2000 campaign, NYTimes called Cheney out for being a board member of Halliburton, whose lucrative defense contracts invite a conflict of interest (read MIC), so he resigned and sold his shares. This development caused the stock to drop. So NYTimes then called him out for insider trading. NYTimes is widely regarded for its high-quality journalism.

I was pretty young and did not give a damn about Halliburton at the time, but over the years, I slowly came to acknowledge the left's position (held since Vietnam really) that these big military-industry concerns, and the alphabet agencies, could be prone to severe overreach. So why did you bail on this idea in January 2017 and commence worshiping Bob Mueller?

 

[Ajidica]

So why did you bail on this idea in January 2017 and commence worshiping Bob Mueller?

The president fired the director of the FBI after the FBI director refused to swear personal loyalty to the president, and after the director informed the president the FBI was aware of an investigating possible attempts by the Russian government -or individuals closely associated with the Russian government - to interfere in the 2016 presidential campaign. A few days later the president went against the 'official' reason for the firing of the FBI director by saying on national television he fired the FBI director 'because of the Russia thing'.

None of that makes you think an outside investigation is warranted into what went down in 2016 and presidential attempts to get involved in that investigation?

 

[Patine]

People would rather vote for Biden than Trump, because of the measurable impact of comparable administrations. If you can't see that, then that's on you. Individual examples of how Biden isn't perfect (nowhere near perfect) aren't the foolproof gotchas you keep assuming them to be, @Berzerker.

It's the exact same (ironically Republican) argument against Obama. The centres existed under his administration too, ergo, checkmate libs! Except that the centres under both administrations could be bad. They could even be worse under one of them, which means when comparing which administration people arguably might want to have in power, people would therefore have a preference.

In truth, they deserve a REAL choice. The two party system fails again. Where you live in the UK, and where I live in Canada, third parties actually became contenders, even "kingmakers," by the early 20th Century - in each of our countries, a once third party effectively supplanted a once long-standing major party in that role (Labour supplanted the Liberals in the UK, and the Reform Party/Canadian Alliance forced a merger on favourable and dominant terms to them with the Federal branch of the Progressive Conservative to form the current Conservative Party of Canada), but the corrupt and electorally malfeasant DNC and RNC party bosses don't ALLOW that to be a possibility through electoral RIGGING - and yes, I said they don't ALLOW it, and they RIG elections in the U.S. - the same kind of rigging the U.S. Department of State scolds emerging democracies for, the kind we here about out of Russia and Zimbabwe. These party bosses are corrupt criminals stealing election after election from the American voters, and their real choice in leadership - they belong in prison doing hard time for electorally-based crimes - but they're still firmly running the racket, mostly for their plutocratic masters, and those who don't want the boat rocked too much. Britons and Canadians like you and I, though we gripe and groan about our unrepresentative and hidebound FPTP systems, are not nearly as screwed over at the ballot box as Americans. And a LOT of Americans don't realize this, or are just in "patriotic denial," of this fact.

 

[Patine]

The president fired the director of the FBI after the FBI director refused to swear personal loyalty to the president, and after the director informed the president the FBI was aware of an investigating possible attempts by the Russian government -or individuals closely associated with the Russian government - to interfere in the 2016 presidential campaign. A few days later the president went against the 'official' reason for the firing of the FBI director by saying on national television he fired the FBI director 'because of the Russia thing'.

None of that makes you think an outside investigation is warranted into what went down in 2016 and presidential attempts to get involved in that investigation?

I thought only feudal and absolute monarchial systems demanded that kind of swearing of PERSONAL allegiance to the head-of-state by high government officials. Like, you know, as a modern example - the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia...

 

[Ajidica]

I thought only feudal and absolute monarchial systems demanded that kind of swearing of PERSONAL allegiance to the head-of-state by high government officials. Like, you know, as a modern example - the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia...

Is this supposed to be a response to something, or are you just doing PC+1?

 

[Patine]

Is this supposed to be a response to something, or are you just doing PC+1?

I have no idea what "PC+1," stands for, so thus I can't answer that question at this point.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

postcount +1

 

[Sommerswerd]

Sorry for being a foreigner.
Still, this doesn't prevent me from having a view, and that is what forum posting is to present if one feels like it.

More crocodile tears and now strawmanning. I never said you can't have an opinion. All I said was that you can't vote in US elections, which is 100% true, so who you would vote for is academic at best, and more accurately... irrelevant. And I added that simply repeating over and over and over again who you would vote for, or that you don't think Biden can win, without anything else substantive, does not add anything to the discussion, which is also true.

I have to say considering our influence over the entire planet it is fair for any foreigner (and especially those who pay attention) to have opinions on US politics.

Don't strawman. I did not say at any point that non-USians or "foreigners" aren't entitled to an opinion. If you think I said that, please quote it.

+1 Was just going to say this. Considering how much we impose our will on the globe it's really not right to tell a foreigner their opinion isn't welcome.

Don't get sucked into the strawmanning. I never said "foreigners opinons aren't welcome". I specifically said that how Kyriakos would vote is irrelevant because he can't vote, which is correct. FTM he can't even participate in the election.

 

[Zardnaar]

More crocodile tears and now strawmanning. I never said you can't have an opinion. All I said was that you can't vote in US elections, which is 100% true, so who you would vote for is academic at best, and more accurately... irrelevant. And I added that simply repeating over and over and over again who you would vote for, or that you don't think Biden can win, without anything else substantive, does not add anything to the discussion, which is also true. Don't strawman. I did not say at any point that non-USians or "foreigners" aren't entitled to an opinion. If you think I said that, please quote it. Don't get sucked into the strawmanning. I never said "foreigners opinons aren't welcome". I specifically said that how Kyriakos would vote is irrelevant because he can't vote, which is correct. FTM he can't even participate in the election.

A true. I would vote Biden or Sanders IMHO.

Not American so the opinion doesn't matter in terms of who I would vote for.

 

[Kyriakos]

More crocodile tears and now strawmanning. I never said you can't have an opinion. All I said was that you can't vote in US elections, which is 100% true, so who you would vote for is academic at best, and more accurately... irrelevant. And I added that simply repeating over and over and over again who you would vote for, or that you don't think Biden can win, without anything else substantive, does not add anything to the discussion, which is also true. Don't strawman. I did not say at any point that non-USians or "foreigners" aren't entitled to an opinion. If you think I said that, please quote it. Don't get sucked into the strawmanning. I never said "foreigners opinons aren't welcome". I specifically said that how Kyriakos would vote is irrelevant because he can't vote, which is correct. FTM he can't even participate in the election.

Only it's not more irrelevant in practice to how you vote. You are just one person - see how that helps you get your candidate or potus.
Like others said, there can't be any other prerequisite for sharing one's view other than - at best - being somewhat familiar with the primary and then the general elections in the US.

Speaking of "irellevant", not sure how you think "crocodile tears" is apt or of relevance. Do you imagine myself being apologetic to you for something? If by chance you think I worry about yourself speaking against my posts... I just find it of no use so If you just have to do it, go ahead, not like I can stop you from the... foreign land

 

[Sommerswerd]

Only it's not more irrelevant in practice to how you vote. You are just one person - see how that helps you get your candidate or potus.
Like others said, there can't be any other prerequisite for sharing one's view other than - at best - being somewhat familiar with the primary and then the general elections in the US.

Speaking of "irellevant", not sure how you think "crocodile tears" is apt or of relevance. Do you imagine myself being apologetic to you for something? If by chance you think I worry about yourself speaking against my posts... I just find it of no use so If you just have to do it, go ahead, not like I can stop you from the... foreign land

You just keep on strawanning. Again, I never said you couldn't give your "opinion" whether its "foreign" or otherwise. You just keep creating strawmen and then shedding "crocodile" ie fake tears over them.

As for a useful contribution... let's hear about the specific ways that the US President/politics has affected Greece in the past and/or could impact Greece in the future. That's a subject that you are particularly well situated to offer insight on, and I'd be interested to hear it.

 

[Tristan_C]

None of that makes you think an outside investigation is warranted into what went down in 2016 and presidential attempts to get involved in that investigation?

I am just not sanguine about an investigation of what really went down in 2016 having consequences.

Using foreign intelligence surveillance as a pretext for deploying the agencies and the secret court against your party's opponent is pretty serious. It certainly makes a joke out of Watergate. The problem is, the president who ran the DOJ in 2016 and who is ultimately accountable for this behavior, as well as his would-be successor, are no longer in a position to suffer any consequences.

Worse, the same media that sacked Nixon goalkeeps for this party. As far as we consumers of this media are concerned, this business with the FISA court did not happen. You took me to task about it earlier. Confronted with 400 pages of evidence of wrongdoing, you asked me for evidence of wrongdoing. Couldn't have happened. There's no swamp. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.

 

[Camikaze]

At what point does it become irresponsible for Sanders to continue fighting an election he cannot win, encouraging people to get out and vote for him (and necessitating older voters getting out and voting for his opponent)? It would be a bad idea to simply cancel the remaining primaries, but there is a potentially real cost to making them contested.

 

[AmazonQueen]

At what point does it become irresponsible for Sanders to continue fighting an election he cannot win, encouraging people to get out and vote for him (and necessitating older voters getting out and voting for his opponent)? It would be a bad idea to simply cancel the remaining primaries, but there is a potentially real cost to making them contested.

Atm he can still win. Unlikely I know but assuming he believes he would be a better candidate than Biden its not only not irresponsible to continue campaigning, its the right thing to do.

 

[Socrates99]

At what point does it become irresponsible for Sanders to continue fighting an election he cannot win, encouraging people to get out and vote for him (and necessitating older voters getting out and voting for his opponent)? It would be a bad idea to simply cancel the remaining primaries, but there is a potentially real cost to making them contested.

I'd say once there aren't enough delegates left.

 

[Kyriakos]

At what point does it become irresponsible for Sanders to continue fighting an election he cannot win, encouraging people to get out and vote for him (and necessitating older voters getting out and voting for his opponent)? It would be a bad idea to simply cancel the remaining primaries, but there is a potentially real cost to making them contested.

Maybe he is counting on the boomers finally giving up

 

[Ajidica]

Using foreign intelligence surveillance as a pretext for deploying the agencies and the secret court against your party's opponent is pretty serious. It certainly makes a joke out of Watergate. The problem is, the president who ran the DOJ in 2016 and who is ultimately accountable for this behavior, as well as his would-be successor, are no longer in a position to suffer any consequences.

Are you saying the security services shouldn't investigate potential attempts by foreign powers to interfere in our elections? Suppose the security services were to learn that Icelandic nationals were trying to interfere in the US election on behalf of [insert candidate]. Should that not be investigated to see if there was any truth and put a stop to it?
Further, this has very little to do with Watergate. Despite Nixon's abuses of the security services, at its core the Watergate scandal was about the President covering up a break-in carried out by private individuals to gather dirt on his opponents. The role of the security services - while important in the background and for the parties motivations- weren't front-and-center in the Watergate scandal.*

*Though I have seen some compelling arguments that the ex-CIA members of the plumbers deliberately flubbed the operation because the CIA wanted to shut down Nixon's coterie of in-house spooks because it was infringing on CIA and FBI territory.

Worse, the same media that sacked Nixon goalkeeps for this party. As far as we consumers of this media are concerned, this business with the FISA court did not happen. You took me to task about it earlier. Confronted with 400 pages of evidence of wrongdoing, you asked me for evidence of wrongdoing. Couldn't have happened. There's no swamp. Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.

You had stated the Horowitz Report provided the FBI investigation was abused for political reasons when that is the exact opposite of what Horowitz found. He was unable to find any evidence of political abuse. However, there were multiple instances of serious and not-so-serious lapses in protocol and of agents being economical with the truth. Why that occurred remains unclear, various commentators over at Lawfare believe it was the result of poor oversight, low level investigators trying to look good on their performance evaluation, and long standing failures with the FISA system. A reform and overhaul of FISA and FBI procedures surely are needed, but the GOP has done [censored]-all to address that seriously, ranting about how everyone is trying to destroy Donald Trump. The Democrats -even though they are traditionally (relatively) suspicious of the security services, they aren't going to touch the issue with a ten foot pole because if they do try and open up hearings on the issue nutjobs like Jim Jordan and Louie Gohmert are going to use the opportunity to metaphorically vomit over the whole topic. A serious discussion about the role of the security services in the United States - especially in domestic areas- is long overdue, but the GOP has poisoned the well so badly one with a vaguely suspicious mind would think they want to avoid discussing that issue.

 

[Patine]

postcount +1

I never make a post for that reason. I don't even keep track of, or really care about my post count.

Are you saying the security services shouldn't investigate potential attempts by foreign powers to interfere in our elections? Suppose the security services were to learn that Icelandic nationals were trying to interfere in the US election on behalf of [insert candidate]. Should that not be investigated to see if there was any truth and put a stop to it?
Further, this has very little to do with Watergate. Despite Nixon's abuses of the security services, at its core the Watergate scandal was about the President covering up a break-in carried out by private individuals to gather dirt on his opponents. The role of the security services - while important in the background and for the parties motivations- weren't front-and-center in the Watergate scandal.*

There needs to be an investigation, with arrests and trials, and massive reforms, over domestic forces who interfere with EVERY election in the United States - the DNC and the RNC, and their State and local affiliates, the plutocratic corporate donors and moneyed special interest groups, the partisan Federal courts who are supposed to judge electoral malfeasance, and the sensationalist media who've gained control, by monopolizing direct coverage, debates, and such, who CANNOT win...