2020 US Election (Part Two)

[thecrazyscot]

Read Joe Biden's FULL votes of support for bills - especially war, foreign intervention, drug law (and law and order in general), and national security ones specifically, though corporate welfare, anti-union, anti-welfare, and anti-benefits ones are good, too - in his long Senate career. He has voted for, enthusiastically and without reservation, all of the significant state crimes committed by the U.S. Federal Government of any sort on any level, domestically and abroad, while he was Senator. What a saint, eh?

Just so I understand...to you the Biden Brand of Evil (tm) and the Trump Brand of Evil (tm) are equivalent? They are equally monstrous?

 

[Patine]

Just so I understand...to you the Biden Brand of Evil (tm) and the Trump Brand of Evil (tm) are equivalent? They are equally monstrous?

Insofar as I will not support or endorse, with any humanity or conscience, either of them. Maybe not perfectly equal. But close enough that both are utterly repugnant choices to me. But you, like the great majority of Americans today (though not absolutely all), probably find true political conviction to be an alien concept, despite it being an immense cataclysm of socio-political change - or resiliency - in many other nations.

 

[thecrazyscot]

Insofar as I will not support or endorse, with any humanity or conscience, either of them. Maybe not perfectly equal. But close enough that both are utterly repugnant choices to me. But you, like the great majority of Americans today (though not absolutely all), probably find true political conviction to be an alien concept, despite it being an immense cataclysm of socio-political change - or resiliency - in many other nations.

I'm trying to be very careful not to misrepresent you, here. Based on this, you consider them essentially equivalent as moral choices when voting for them? Perhaps not completely equivalent, but close enough for it not to make an ultimate difference?

 

[Ironsided]

Crazyscot I think Patine has been a lot more in depth about how he views the candidates than you have. If you require hard comparable numbers, maybe you could give us yours first?

 

[Patine]

I'm trying to be very careful not to misrepresent you, here. Based on this, you consider them essentially equivalent as moral choices when voting for them? Perhaps not completely equivalent, but close enough for it not to make an ultimate difference?

As cynical and jaded of political chicanery and disinformation as it may sound, very close to that. I feel media overexposure and a highly sensationalist, post-reason, and sharply and irrationally polarized U.S. voter base is what's portraying Trump out to be so much worse and more diabolical - an Antichrist complex seems to be attached to him, as well as words like Fascist thrown around like paper airplanes in a detention room for students who were goofing on school time - than past Presidents of the past 60 years. But, in truth, they're all more or less as bad, except for maybe Carter - not perfectly equal, but as far as it matters - and I don't see Biden as being a true improvement.

 

[Gorbles]

"people keep saying Trump is worse than I think he is" would be a lot shorter, Patine. It also answers why, perhaps, people have such specific opinions of you r.e. Trump.

I'm not saying I agree with those opinions, I'm trying to explain to you where they're coming from. The dissonance stems from your inability to accept the uniqueness in the current GOP, headed by Trump, and the actions they have been able to carry out, which for any other administration would result in catastrophic results.

• Which previous administrations (especially those in the past two decades) have appointed immediate family to positions within the White House?
• Which previous administrations, in doing the above, have voided security principles that exist throughout the chain of command for the sake of this access?
• Which previous Presidents have failed to disclose business interests? Which previous Presidents have benefitted financially from ongoing business commitments and deals?
• What is the cost of Trump's golfing exercises, compared against the costs for previous Presidents' recreational outings? How does the time compare?

The problem is you constantly speak in generics. I have a feeling if you actually sit down and compare some of the actual differences in this administration to what came before, you may be surprised. You may find that though there may be singular points that individual Presidents or administrations fulfill, only Trump fulfills them all.

The article lead me to believe false things about the report because they chose to spin surface details rather than content. It's bad reporting, and it's why we have a misinformed populace based on choosing teams and spreading misinformation faster than truth.

What false things did it lead you to believe?

I believe you consider it bad reporting. I don't think the blame you're putting at its feet is anywhere near accurate, though. I believe this might be a particularly important issue to you though, which I do understand.

 

[innonimatu]

As cynical and jaded of political chicanery and disinformation as it may sound, very close to that. I feel media overexposure and a highly sensationalist, post-reason, and sharply and irrationally polarized U.S. voter base is what's portraying Trump out to be so much worse and more diabolical - an Antichrist complex seems to be attached to him, as well as words like Fascist thrown around like paper airplanes in a detention room for students who were goofing on school time - than past Presidents of the past 60 years. But, in truth, they're all more or less as bad, except for maybe Carter - not perfectly equal, but as far as it matters - and I don't see Biden as being a true improvement.

I really don't want to wade into these fights here, but one thing I wish to point out: there is nothing "post-reason" in this. Disinformation is something managed very rationally. Sensationalism is rationally deployed. The social outcome may well be terrible, but the people doing it are rational. And the people following it are rational, even when they are fools and undermining their own interests in some way, they're following other interests they also have. The thing with humans is that we're quite able to be contradictory.
This is why crusading for rationalism is very often a quixotic endeavor. Better be very patient rather than enthusiastic as the sorry knight was...

 

[Patine]

I really don't want to wade into these fights here, but one thing I wish to point out: there is nothing "post-reason" in this. Disinformation is something managed very rationally. Sensationalism is rationally deployed. The social outcome may well be terrible, but the people doing it are rational. And the people following it are rational, even when they are fools and undermining their own interests in some way, they're following other interests they also have. The thing with humans is that we're quite able to be contradictory.
This is why crusading for rationalism is very often a quixotic endeavor. Better be very patient rather than enthusiastic as the sorry knight was...

When I use these adjectives, I am moreso describing the general tenor of the receiving audience, not the manipulative and Goebbels-school political propagandists, just to be clear.

 

[Kyriakos]

Why fight now, when in 6 days we will have the terrible (either way) result.

I do think that it was very scandalous that the accusation against Biden for sexual assault was pretty much pushed under the rag, and then routinely dismissed. Still, Trump isn't exactly better on that front either - far from it.

And I do hope the hyper-elders and/or fam will bother to vote in the real election too, not just the one which took Bernie out.

 

[El_Machinae]

But some choices are untenable.

Sorry, I was pointing out that you were damaging your ability to communicate by being too verbose.

 

[innonimatu]

• Which previous administrations (especially those in the past two decades) have appointed immediate family to positions within the White House?
• Which previous administrations, in doing the above, have voided security principles that exist throughout the chain of command for the sake of this access?
• Which previous Presidents have failed to disclose business interests? Which previous Presidents have benefitted financially from ongoing business commitments and deals?
• What is the cost of Trump's golfing exercises, compared against the costs for previous Presidents' recreational outings? How does the time compare?

Costs of things such as golfing are peanuts in the whole scheme. Not even a blip on the radar. They may look bad but better that politicians have their leisure paid with public funds than by some oligarch who will get favours, as the former EU head used to do.

Trump will probably leave office much poorer than he went in, at least if he leaves in this election, because of the virus impact's on tourism and hotels. I do wonder how much his denialism and wishful thinking on the virus results from those business interests. It probably does and could be a point used by the opposition against him - except that opposition is equally guilty of the same denialism and wishful thinking. My point though is that if he wasn't president he'd probably be wealthier by 2021 than he'll be in out timeline: would have shamelessly exploited public funding and divested of business without political worries about the image impact of those actions.

As for appointing family and security access... every one? The one that built the current american empire (Roosevelt's) was part run by the wife as the president was so dependent on aid. Reagan ended his term senile. Clinton set up a joing foundation" with Hillary to receive the bribes and they have been busy building their daughter's career. Now there's the unmentionable Biden family deals... and so on. Nepotism has always been a thing.

Imo the one thing really different about Trump is that he's the wizard of Oz without the curtain. Which is also why the Washington DC power elite want in gone asap: he exposes too much and this weakens them because the whole thing depends on theater.

As for fears of a coup in the US: I'm seriously concerned that cumulative incompetence and public anger will open the way to coups in Europe. It's nothing new, the of a dictator when governments fail in some emergency. It is over 2000 years old and never obsolete. But whomever does the coup will not, cannot, be a populist on Trump's mold. The style of that figure always has to be serious. Trump does not fit. The one danger he poses is that his incompetence will open the way for such a figure. The advantage though is that he personally cannot do this coup, and his no curtains mode in Washington makes it very hard for someone else there to position himself to do such a coup. The hole thing being a media show means no one manages to built a "serious guy" aura.
On balance I don't know whether a US with Trump will be more or less resistant to coups. It's anyone's guess. As is the identity of who might pull off a coup.

When I use these adjectives, I am moreso describing the general tenor of the receiving audience, not the manipulative and Goebbels-school political propagandists, just to be clear.

I understand. But the audience is not the same as Goebbels' was. My impression is that much of the indignation around Trump is performative, a tribal act. Not an act of belief. Certainly so among the well-to-do professional classes who get to have their opinions published and heard. Trump derangement syndrome is not really derangement.

 

[thecrazyscot]

As cynical and jaded of political chicanery and disinformation as it may sound, very close to that. I feel media overexposure and a highly sensationalist, post-reason, and sharply and irrationally polarized U.S. voter base is what's portraying Trump out to be so much worse and more diabolical - an Antichrist complex seems to be attached to him, as well as words like Fascist thrown around like paper airplanes in a detention room for students who were goofing on school time - than past Presidents of the past 60 years. But, in truth, they're all more or less as bad, except for maybe Carter - not perfectly equal, but as far as it matters - and I don't see Biden as being a true improvement.

I have a deep mistrust of our political system, and have for years. I'm not going to argue that any administration in the last several decades has been a morally pure administration, a morally consistent administration, or even just a mostly moral administration. Frankly, I don't think it is possible to have a moral administration at this point, because so much of American power and influence is predicated an inherently immoral acts that have been consistently reinforced and continued since the inception of our country.

But unless you (the generic "you") are going to completely check out of the democratic process a choice must be made. And not voting is not taking a moral stand, it is surrendering your moral choice to the hands of others. We have what we have, and it is up to us to try and make the best of it and improve it.

Ever since I became old enough to vote, I have consistently voted 3rd party, because I am convinced that only by breaking the 2-party system do we have any chance of true governmental reform. But I didn't vote 3rd party this time, because I strongly, strongly believe that Trump vs Biden is not a morally equivalent choice.

There are a host of ways to measure an administration, and unless you cherry pick a few of them none of them are going to come up all positive for any president. If you measure by one demographic, a certain president might be enormously beneficial, while if you look at another demographic, he was cruelly discriminatory.

When I look at all the different measures of the Trump administration, I see only two (overlapping) groups of people who have benefited: the rich, and the Trumps themselves. Life has become worse for everyone else since Trump took office. Hundreds of thousands of "everyone else" have died since Trump took office. All those conflicts and interventions we've gotten our hands dirty in over the decades have continued - Trump hasn't stopped them. But he has crippled their impact, which means what was it all for? Originally the overall goal for all of these was to maintain American hegemony over and against Russia and China - two countries who are arguably worse than America (if you are choosing hegemons) in so many ways - and he has just wasted all the blood on our collective hands, and added so much more through cruelty, ineptitude, pettiness, and worse. This makes me angry, because we live in a world where bad things are done all the time, but they are (ostensibly) done in the name of preventing even worse things, and now those even worse things are coming to pass so what was it all for. Geopolitics is an inherently morally bankrupt game, but at least most of the rest of the world could depend on us to do our part in maintaining stability, being a bulwark against even bloodier political forces, and spreading aid throughout the world. Trump chucked all that out of the window, so again, what was it all for.

Biden is no savior. I don't even believe he's a particularly good man. I think he's made a lot of bad votes and compromises and taken harmful stances during his career. He's not going to turn Washington around and turn it into a moral paragon. But he will be someone the rest of the world can depend on, because he's a continuation of what came before. And he won't plunder the country for his own gain and those of his rich friends. And he might even restore some objectively good policies that Trump reversed so that the country could be plundered more easily.

So yeah, Biden is better than Trump. Trump is catastrophic. Get him out of office, and then hopefully we can get back to trying to dismantle the 2-party system.

Sorry for the rant, not sure how coherent it is.

 

[Kyriakos]

Trump will probably leave office much poorer than he went in, at least if he leaves in this election, because of the virus impact's on tourism and hotels. I do wonder how much his denialism and wishful thinking on the virus results from those business interests. It probably does and could be a point used by the opposition against him - except that opposition is equally guilty of the same denialism and wishful thinking. My point though is that if he wasn't president he'd probably be wealthier by 2021 than he'll be in out timeline: would have shamelessly exploited public funding and divested of business without political worries about the image impact of those actions.

Lots of people will be poorer than they were before covid. That doesn't change the fact Trump does his hotel business and makes deals there with specific not really democratic foreign countries, which countries wouldn't give af about Trump and wouldn't do those deals if he wasn't potus. I am pretty sure his actions are entirely illegal. Members of his cabinet have been forced to retire after being exposed for similar illegal dealings with foreign govs.

Btw, if Trump loses, it is likely he will just "emigrate" to some of those countries, rather than face the consequences for his illegal activities.

 

[Patine]

Sorry, I was pointing out that you were damaging your ability to communicate by being too verbose.

I think that's moreso my audience, here, really. For some reason, verbosity gets a speaker or writer quite far with more receptive audiences who aren't endlessly nitpicking the delivery and utterly ignoring the message - probably due to lack of any other lack of credible retort and a discomfort with the inconvenient truth and points being brought up.

 

[Lexicus]

Why fight now, when in 6 days we will have the terrible (either way) result.

I highly doubt we will have the result in 6 days. I hope we will have it in six weeks but not very optimistic.

 

[Kyriakos]

I highly doubt we will have the result in 6 days. I hope we will have it in six weeks but not very optimistic.

Why would it be so slow? Is counting mailed-in votes that different?

 

[Patine]

I have a deep mistrust of our political system, and have for years. I'm not going to argue that any administration in the last several decades has been a morally pure administration, a morally consistent administration, or even just a mostly moral administration. Frankly, I don't think it is possible to have a moral administration at this point, because so much of American power and influence is predicated an inherently immoral acts that have been consistently reinforced and continued since the inception of our country.

But unless you (the generic "you") are going to completely check out of the democratic process a choice must be made. And not voting is not taking a moral stand, it is surrendering your moral choice to the hands of others. We have what we have, and it is up to us to try and make the best of it and improve it.

Ever since I became old enough to vote, I have consistently voted 3rd party, because I am convinced that only by breaking the 2-party system do we have any chance of true governmental reform. But I didn't vote 3rd party this time, because I strongly, strongly believe that Trump vs Biden is not a morally equivalent choice.

There are a host of ways to measure an administration, and unless you cherry pick a few of them none of them are going to come up all positive for any president. If you measure by one demographic, a certain president might be enormously beneficial, while if you look at another demographic, he was cruelly discriminatory.

When I look at all the different measures of the Trump administration, I see only two (overlapping) groups of people who have benefited: the rich, and the Trumps themselves. Life has become worse for everyone else since Trump took office. Hundreds of thousands of "everyone else" have died since Trump took office. All those conflicts and interventions we've gotten our hands dirty in over the decades have continued - Trump hasn't stopped them. But he has crippled their impact, which means what was it all for? Originally the overall goal for all of these was to maintain American hegemony over and against Russia and China - two countries who are arguably worse than America (if you are choosing hegemons) in so many ways - and he has just wasted all the blood on our collective hands, and added so much more through cruelty, ineptitude, pettiness, and worse. This makes me angry, because we live in a world where bad things are done all the time, but they are (ostensibly) done in the name of preventing even worse things, and now those even worse things are coming to pass so what was it all for. Geopolitics is an inherently morally bankrupt game, but at least most of the rest of the world could depend on us to do our part in maintaining stability, being a bulwark against even bloodier political forces, and spreading aid throughout the world. Trump chucked all that out of the window, so again, what was it all for.

Biden is no savior. I don't even believe he's a particularly good man. I think he's made a lot of bad votes and compromises and taken harmful stances during his career. He's not going to turn Washington around and turn it into a moral paragon. But he will be someone the rest of the world can depend on, because he's a continuation of what came before. And he won't plunder the country for his own gain and those of his rich friends. And he might even restore some objectively good policies that Trump reversed so that the country could be plundered more easily.

So yeah, Biden is better than Trump. Trump is catastrophic. Get him out of office, and then hopefully we can get back to trying to dismantle the 2-party system.

Sorry for the rant, not sure how coherent it is.

You want to hear the real kicker - the punchline. I live, and am a citizen of Canada. But this forum community and their rhetoric has become so toxic and self-indulgent that my lack of desire to commit, fully and completely, without reservation and doubt, to supporting and endorsing a candidate I cannot even vote for (something inflicted on every other non-American who posts here) is taken as a personal insult and as grave and dire an abdication of duty as if I had a vote. That is why I was only using terms like, "support," "endorse," and "stamp of approval," (for myself) and never, "vote." I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, as you were likely unaware, but doesn't that forum attitude and expectation sound ridiculous to you. It's another part of why I'm so upset here, in general.

 

[innonimatu]

Lots of people will be poorer than they were before covid. That doesn't change the fact Trump does his hotel business and makes deals there with specific not really democratic foreign countries, which countries wouldn't give af about Trump and wouldn't do those deals if he wasn't potus. I am pretty sure his actions are entirely illegal.

Can you point out which of those deals do not predate his current political career? his businesses in Turkey, which I believe are your particular peeve, started in the mid 2000s. He's been off handling those businesses since he took on the presidency and everything he did there can't have helped his brand, from the muslim ban early on to withdrawing support to Turkey's pet jihadis in Syria. Look instead at his family, Kushner, and the saudis and emiratis, and perhaps you are looking there. But then again arab money in washington is nothing new at all and this one does not seem to have gone to Trump. Just as Biden can claim to not have received his share. Peas of a very large pod.

Trump's incapability to solve several serious problems (the pandemic, deindustralization, health care, the stupid persistence of racial divisions, oligarchic monopolies, etc) is the real thing against him. It's sadly symptomatic that the opposition there makes little of that. Same as in Europe: those who have no intention of fixing the problems do not want them discussed in an election.

 

[Lexicus]

Why would it be so slow? Is counting mailed-in votes that different?

Yes. Most in-person voting is by machine, so I expect that counting mail-in ballots will take significantly longer.
I also expect unprecedented Republican shenanigans, both legal and extralegal, to delay the vote count at all costs and by whatever means.

 

[Kyriakos]

Can you point out which of those deals do not predate his current political career? his businesses in Turkey, which I believe are your particular peeve, started in the mid 2000s. He's been off handling those businesses since he took on the presidency and everything he did there can't have helped his brand, from the muslim ban early on to withdrawing support to Turkey's pet jihadis in Syria. Look instead at his family, Kushner, and the saudis and emiratis, and perhaps you are looking there. But then again arab money in washington is nothing new at all and this one does not seem to have gone to Trump. Just as Biden can claim to not have received his share. Peas of a very large pod.

Trump's incapability to solve several serious problems (the pandemic, deindustralization, health care, the stupid persistence of racial divisions, oligarchic monopolies, etc) is the real thing against him. It's sadly symptomatic that the opposition there makes little of that. Same as in Europe: those who have no intention of fixing the problems do not want them discussed in an election.

I don't get what you are trying to say - you can't be arguing that just cause Trump had a business before he became president, deals he did while president are the same
There's a rumour that he is also compromised due to a scandal with a local bank there - Chalkbank or some jazz like that. As usual, those banks are owned by members of the Erdogan family, cause everything runs democratically.