|
On November 06 2020 20:54 Belisarius wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2020 20:38 Tictock wrote:On November 06 2020 20:18 Furikawari wrote:On November 06 2020 20:07 KungKras wrote:On November 06 2020 20:05 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 06 2020 20:04 KungKras wrote:On November 06 2020 20:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 06 2020 19:53 Slydie wrote:That page is very useful, thanks! This looks over. My bullet proof prediction: Trump gets North Carolina and Alaska Biden retains Nevada, Georgia and Arizona, and a Pennsylvania flip is inbound with incoming votes heavily trending Biden. The EC vote will not be that close in the end with 298 to 240. Might be that actually, Biden will be remembered to have performed very well, both in the popular vote and the electoral college. The way I see it, the only problem facing democrats is that they need to convince folks in many rural / poorer / southern states that just don't vote for them; which is just punishing considering how the system is designed. I know that centrists think that the whole "socialist" message is a suicide and progressive think that the centrist way has failed and is the root of all problems. I think they are both right and that the dems need a synthesis: truly progressive policies package in a way that won't scare the voters they trail with off. I hope that the longer time goes on since the cold war ended, "socialism" will lose its boogeyman status. I mean there isn't a big bad soviet union around to be paranoid about anymore. Or just use a better word. Sanders is muuuuch more a social democrat than a socialist for example. I'm still perplexed why Sanders didn't call himself a social democrat. I mean out of all the terms he could have used, it's the one that's most positively charged, and the one with the most success stories around the world under its banner. The people you want to convince don't give a shit about what's going on in the rest of the world anyway. What I retain from all of this is that your country is even more divided than what I thought. I still cannot understand how Trump got more votes that what he got in 2016, to a foreigner it's just crazy (understatement). To a native... it's downright disheartening. CNN had a short op-ed that summed it up fairly well, I thought. It's hardly a controversial position, but it really is beyond belief that this is truly what half of America seems to think. https://edition.cnn.com/2020/11/04/opinions/us-global-image-after-election-night-2020-wierson/index.htmlShow nested quote +No matter the outcome, America's standing in the world took a big hit on election night
Joe Biden may still end up winning this election, but no matter how you cut it, it was clear here and around the globe that roughly half of America believes that the character of our President doesn't matter all that much, an impeachment is meaningless and the Department of Justice really should serve as the chief executive's personal law firm.
More importantly, from a global perspective, roughly one in two of American voters signaled to the world that not only are capricious trade wars palatable, but long-standing global alliances like the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) don't matter anymore.
What about withholding funding from the World Health Organization amid a global pandemic that has claimed well over a million lives across the globe? Many voters apparently thought that was OK. Abrogating leadership on the existential issue of climate change? Another check. Not to mention what this split decision says about the US and our moral fabric on the topics of social justice, racial equality and inclusiveness.
[...]
Our friends across the world can no longer count on us to do the right thing. No matter who wins this election, America is already weaker for it. We had an opportunity as a country to turn a page on this dark chapter in our history, but we, as a people and a nation, came up well short.
Fool me once, and all that. The world is a much scarier place since Tuesday morning.
I dislike this take by CNN.
I think the rest of the world has a good idea of what America is about already, I don't think a lot of people's minds were changed by this particular election. It's abusing the circumstances to make a point, the point being that liberalism is good (as opposed to, "a lesser evil" for the left, and "the demon seed of Satan" for the right).
I know a lot of people will go back asleep because the bad guy is no longer president but I hope enough people keep paying attention, otherwise in four years we'll be back to this - and the fascist will be in better shape than he was this time, it's not like Biden is likely to deliver a nice future for the average American.
|
On November 06 2020 20:52 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2020 20:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 06 2020 20:45 Nebuchad wrote:On November 06 2020 20:41 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 06 2020 20:40 Nebuchad wrote:On November 06 2020 20:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 06 2020 20:20 Nebuchad wrote:On November 06 2020 20:05 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 06 2020 20:04 KungKras wrote:On November 06 2020 20:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
Might be that actually, Biden will be remembered to have performed very well, both in the popular vote and the electoral college.
The way I see it, the only problem facing democrats is that they need to convince folks in many rural / poorer / southern states that just don't vote for them; which is just punishing considering how the system is designed.
I know that centrists think that the whole "socialist" message is a suicide and progressive think that the centrist way has failed and is the root of all problems. I think they are both right and that the dems need a synthesis: truly progressive policies package in a way that won't scare the voters they trail with off. I hope that the longer time goes on since the cold war ended, "socialism" will lose its boogeyman status. I mean there isn't a big bad soviet union around to be paranoid about anymore. Or just use a better word. Sanders is muuuuch more a social democrat than a socialist for example. I don't think so. I think he was being pragmatic about what can be achieved in the US but he definitely wanted the good stuff. Social democracy has a better historical track record of being the "good stuff" than actual socialism. Also if you think that Sanders wants to abolish private property, give the entire control of the means of production to the workers, end capitalism and take his ideas from Vladimir Lenin, you haven't been following. All he's fought for all his life is to make the US look like something like Denmark, not a hypothetical successful USSR fantasyland. But again, it's all about the ambiguity of the word socialism, and that's why it's a shit word. Sanders uses it in a French way, to mean, social democracy. And the older folk think that he wants what you want, and so of course they get scared and vote against it because no one except five guys want to retry Lenin but *this time* get it right. His program contained incentives for worker co-ops, which a social democrat has no use for and we socialists do. So yeah I've been following. Most social democrats are totally positive about workers co-op, what are you talking about? What kind of definitions are you using? Social democracy maintains a mixed economy between private owners and a strong welfare state. Co-ops are basically the difference between market socialism and social democracy. If you're for co-ops and a social democracy you're a socialist. Jesus, are there *any* nuances in your world or do you only work with 100% this or 100% that? It's not because you are positive about workers co-ops that you want to expropriate and nationalize the whole economy and consider anyone who owns a business a parasitic kulak. There is absolutely room for workers cooperatives in a social democracy, and most social democrats see that as a very good thing to be encouraged. Including Sanders. So again. Sanders wants a very strong welfare state, a highly regulated economy, high taxation, and, yes, help workers cooperatives when they are viable. It's the exact definition of a social democrat program. Well typically if your program contains incentives for something it's because you want more of that thing?
The difference Biff is pointing out is that social democrats may encourage co-ops while accepting private ownership as a viable alternative, whereas socialists would like to abolish private ownership. Sanders is in the former camp.
|
On November 06 2020 21:00 KungKras wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2020 20:54 Belisarius wrote:On November 06 2020 20:38 Tictock wrote:
To a native... it's downright disheartening. CNN had a short op-ed that summed it up fairly well, I thought. It's hardly a controversial position, but it really is beyond belief that this is truly what half of America seems to think. https://edition.cnn.com/2020/11/04/opinions/us-global-image-after-election-night-2020-wierson/index.htmlNo matter the outcome, America's standing in the world took a big hit on election night
Joe Biden may still end up winning this election, but no matter how you cut it, it was clear here and around the globe that roughly half of America believes that the character of our President doesn't matter all that much, an impeachment is meaningless and the Department of Justice really should serve as the chief executive's personal law firm.
More importantly, from a global perspective, roughly one in two of American voters signaled to the world that not only are capricious trade wars palatable, but long-standing global alliances like the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) don't matter anymore.
What about withholding funding from the World Health Organization amid a global pandemic that has claimed well over a million lives across the globe? Many voters apparently thought that was OK. Abrogating leadership on the existential issue of climate change? Another check. Not to mention what this split decision says about the US and our moral fabric on the topics of social justice, racial equality and inclusiveness.
[...]
Our friends across the world can no longer count on us to do the right thing. No matter who wins this election, America is already weaker for it. We had an opportunity as a country to turn a page on this dark chapter in our history, but we, as a people and a nation, came up well short.
Fool me once, and all that. The world is a much scarier place since Tuesday morning. It wouldn't surprise me if the EU starts working on their own alternative to NATO, just in case another lunatic becomes president again. EDIT: Taiwan must be really worried about the future also.
Taiwan is just screwed. Utterly screwed. I have the deepest admiration for their principles and determination, but I really can't see any path forward for them.
Xinjiang is the future of Hong Kong, is the future of Taiwan, is the future of any middle power that China pulls into its orbit, imo.
The last category includes us, so things are not looking good here either.
|
On November 06 2020 21:00 KungKras wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2020 20:54 Belisarius wrote:On November 06 2020 20:38 Tictock wrote:On November 06 2020 20:18 Furikawari wrote:On November 06 2020 20:07 KungKras wrote:On November 06 2020 20:05 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 06 2020 20:04 KungKras wrote:On November 06 2020 20:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 06 2020 19:53 Slydie wrote:That page is very useful, thanks! This looks over. My bullet proof prediction: Trump gets North Carolina and Alaska Biden retains Nevada, Georgia and Arizona, and a Pennsylvania flip is inbound with incoming votes heavily trending Biden. The EC vote will not be that close in the end with 298 to 240. Might be that actually, Biden will be remembered to have performed very well, both in the popular vote and the electoral college. The way I see it, the only problem facing democrats is that they need to convince folks in many rural / poorer / southern states that just don't vote for them; which is just punishing considering how the system is designed. I know that centrists think that the whole "socialist" message is a suicide and progressive think that the centrist way has failed and is the root of all problems. I think they are both right and that the dems need a synthesis: truly progressive policies package in a way that won't scare the voters they trail with off. I hope that the longer time goes on since the cold war ended, "socialism" will lose its boogeyman status. I mean there isn't a big bad soviet union around to be paranoid about anymore. Or just use a better word. Sanders is muuuuch more a social democrat than a socialist for example. I'm still perplexed why Sanders didn't call himself a social democrat. I mean out of all the terms he could have used, it's the one that's most positively charged, and the one with the most success stories around the world under its banner. The people you want to convince don't give a shit about what's going on in the rest of the world anyway. What I retain from all of this is that your country is even more divided than what I thought. I still cannot understand how Trump got more votes that what he got in 2016, to a foreigner it's just crazy (understatement). To a native... it's downright disheartening. CNN had a short op-ed that summed it up fairly well, I thought. It's hardly a controversial position, but it really is beyond belief that this is truly what half of America seems to think. https://edition.cnn.com/2020/11/04/opinions/us-global-image-after-election-night-2020-wierson/index.htmlNo matter the outcome, America's standing in the world took a big hit on election night
Joe Biden may still end up winning this election, but no matter how you cut it, it was clear here and around the globe that roughly half of America believes that the character of our President doesn't matter all that much, an impeachment is meaningless and the Department of Justice really should serve as the chief executive's personal law firm.
More importantly, from a global perspective, roughly one in two of American voters signaled to the world that not only are capricious trade wars palatable, but long-standing global alliances like the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) don't matter anymore.
What about withholding funding from the World Health Organization amid a global pandemic that has claimed well over a million lives across the globe? Many voters apparently thought that was OK. Abrogating leadership on the existential issue of climate change? Another check. Not to mention what this split decision says about the US and our moral fabric on the topics of social justice, racial equality and inclusiveness.
[...]
Our friends across the world can no longer count on us to do the right thing. No matter who wins this election, America is already weaker for it. We had an opportunity as a country to turn a page on this dark chapter in our history, but we, as a people and a nation, came up well short.
Fool me once, and all that. The world is a much scarier place since Tuesday morning. It wouldn't surprise me if the EU starts working on their own alternative to NATO, just in case another lunatic becomes president again. EDIT: Taiwan must be really worried about the future also. We've already seen a lot more talk about a European army ever since Trump got elected. The world knows the US is no longer a reliable ally.
|
On November 06 2020 21:03 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2020 20:54 Belisarius wrote:On November 06 2020 20:38 Tictock wrote:On November 06 2020 20:18 Furikawari wrote:On November 06 2020 20:07 KungKras wrote:On November 06 2020 20:05 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 06 2020 20:04 KungKras wrote:On November 06 2020 20:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 06 2020 19:53 Slydie wrote:That page is very useful, thanks! This looks over. My bullet proof prediction: Trump gets North Carolina and Alaska Biden retains Nevada, Georgia and Arizona, and a Pennsylvania flip is inbound with incoming votes heavily trending Biden. The EC vote will not be that close in the end with 298 to 240. Might be that actually, Biden will be remembered to have performed very well, both in the popular vote and the electoral college. The way I see it, the only problem facing democrats is that they need to convince folks in many rural / poorer / southern states that just don't vote for them; which is just punishing considering how the system is designed. I know that centrists think that the whole "socialist" message is a suicide and progressive think that the centrist way has failed and is the root of all problems. I think they are both right and that the dems need a synthesis: truly progressive policies package in a way that won't scare the voters they trail with off. I hope that the longer time goes on since the cold war ended, "socialism" will lose its boogeyman status. I mean there isn't a big bad soviet union around to be paranoid about anymore. Or just use a better word. Sanders is muuuuch more a social democrat than a socialist for example. I'm still perplexed why Sanders didn't call himself a social democrat. I mean out of all the terms he could have used, it's the one that's most positively charged, and the one with the most success stories around the world under its banner. The people you want to convince don't give a shit about what's going on in the rest of the world anyway. What I retain from all of this is that your country is even more divided than what I thought. I still cannot understand how Trump got more votes that what he got in 2016, to a foreigner it's just crazy (understatement). To a native... it's downright disheartening. CNN had a short op-ed that summed it up fairly well, I thought. It's hardly a controversial position, but it really is beyond belief that this is truly what half of America seems to think. https://edition.cnn.com/2020/11/04/opinions/us-global-image-after-election-night-2020-wierson/index.htmlNo matter the outcome, America's standing in the world took a big hit on election night
Joe Biden may still end up winning this election, but no matter how you cut it, it was clear here and around the globe that roughly half of America believes that the character of our President doesn't matter all that much, an impeachment is meaningless and the Department of Justice really should serve as the chief executive's personal law firm.
More importantly, from a global perspective, roughly one in two of American voters signaled to the world that not only are capricious trade wars palatable, but long-standing global alliances like the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) don't matter anymore.
What about withholding funding from the World Health Organization amid a global pandemic that has claimed well over a million lives across the globe? Many voters apparently thought that was OK. Abrogating leadership on the existential issue of climate change? Another check. Not to mention what this split decision says about the US and our moral fabric on the topics of social justice, racial equality and inclusiveness.
[...]
Our friends across the world can no longer count on us to do the right thing. No matter who wins this election, America is already weaker for it. We had an opportunity as a country to turn a page on this dark chapter in our history, but we, as a people and a nation, came up well short.
Fool me once, and all that. The world is a much scarier place since Tuesday morning. I dislike this take by CNN. I think the rest of the world has a good idea of what America is about already, I don't think a lot of people's minds were changed by this particular election. It's abusing the circumstances to make a point, the point being that liberalism is good (as opposed to, "a lesser evil" for the left, and "the demon seed of Satan" for the right). I know a lot of people will go back asleep because the bad guy is no longer president but I hope enough people keep paying attention, otherwise in four years we'll be back to this - and the fascist will be in better shape than he was this time, it's not like Biden is likely to deliver a nice future for the average American.
Thats an odd and disapointing take from cnn and i dont agree with it either,i think the usa came out ahead. The epidemic will remain a huge problem but prospects for the future did improve in many different aspects (amongst which a less polarized society).
Slightly edited,appologies for messing up the quote below.
|
On November 06 2020 21:07 pmh wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2020 21:03 Nebuchad wrote:On November 06 2020 20:54 Belisarius wrote:On November 06 2020 20:38 Tictock wrote:On November 06 2020 20:18 Furikawari wrote:On November 06 2020 20:07 KungKras wrote:On November 06 2020 20:05 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 06 2020 20:04 KungKras wrote:On November 06 2020 20:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 06 2020 19:53 Slydie wrote:[quote] That page is very useful, thanks! This looks over. My bullet proof prediction: Trump gets North Carolina and Alaska Biden retains Nevada, Georgia and Arizona, and a Pennsylvania flip is inbound with incoming votes heavily trending Biden. The EC vote will not be that close in the end with 298 to 240. Might be that actually, Biden will be remembered to have performed very well, both in the popular vote and the electoral college. The way I see it, the only problem facing democrats is that they need to convince folks in many rural / poorer / southern states that just don't vote for them; which is just punishing considering how the system is designed. I know that centrists think that the whole "socialist" message is a suicide and progressive think that the centrist way has failed and is the root of all problems. I think they are both right and that the dems need a synthesis: truly progressive policies package in a way that won't scare the voters they trail with off. I hope that the longer time goes on since the cold war ended, "socialism" will lose its boogeyman status. I mean there isn't a big bad soviet union around to be paranoid about anymore. Or just use a better word. Sanders is muuuuch more a social democrat than a socialist for example. I'm still perplexed why Sanders didn't call himself a social democrat. I mean out of all the terms he could have used, it's the one that's most positively charged, and the one with the most success stories around the world under its banner. The people you want to convince don't give a shit about what's going on in the rest of the world anyway. What I retain from all of this is that your country is even more divided than what I thought. I still cannot understand how Trump got more votes that what he got in 2016, to a foreigner it's just crazy (understatement). To a native... it's downright disheartening. CNN had a short op-ed that summed it up fairly well, I thought. It's hardly a controversial position, but it really is beyond belief that this is truly what half of America seems to think. https://edition.cnn.com/2020/11/04/opinions/us-global-image-after-election-night-2020-wierson/index.htmlNo matter the outcome, America's standing in the world took a big hit on election night
Joe Biden may still end up winning this election, but no matter how you cut it, it was clear here and around the globe that roughly half of America believes that the character of our President doesn't matter all that much, an impeachment is meaningless and the Department of Justice really should serve as the chief executive's personal law firm.
More importantly, from a global perspective, roughly one in two of American voters signaled to the world that not only are capricious trade wars palatable, but long-standing global alliances like the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) don't matter anymore.
What about withholding funding from the World Health Organization amid a global pandemic that has claimed well over a million lives across the globe? Many voters apparently thought that was OK. Abrogating leadership on the existential issue of climate change? Another check. Not to mention what this split decision says about the US and our moral fabric on the topics of social justice, racial equality and inclusiveness.
[...]
Our friends across the world can no longer count on us to do the right thing. No matter who wins this election, America is already weaker for it. We had an opportunity as a country to turn a page on this dark chapter in our history, but we, as a people and a nation, came up well short.
Fool me once, and all that. The world is a much scarier place since Tuesday morning. I dislike this take by CNN. I think the rest of the world has a good idea of what America is about already, I don't think a lot of people's minds were changed by this particular election. It's abusing the circumstances to make a point, the point being that liberalism is good (as opposed to, "a lesser evil" for the left, and "the demon seed of Satan" for the right). I know a lot of people will go back asleep because the bad guy is no longer president but I hope enough people keep paying attention, otherwise in four years we'll be back to this - and the fascist will be in better shape than he was this time, it's not like Biden is likely to deliver a nice future for the average American. Thats an odd and disapointing take from cnn and i dont agree with it either. I do think biden will create a better and less polarized society though.
I see the polar opposite.
I agree with most of the CNN take, and i don't think Biden will create a less polarized/divided society.
|
On November 06 2020 21:03 maybenexttime wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2020 20:52 Nebuchad wrote:On November 06 2020 20:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 06 2020 20:45 Nebuchad wrote:On November 06 2020 20:41 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 06 2020 20:40 Nebuchad wrote:On November 06 2020 20:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 06 2020 20:20 Nebuchad wrote:On November 06 2020 20:05 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 06 2020 20:04 KungKras wrote:
[quote]
I hope that the longer time goes on since the cold war ended, "socialism" will lose its boogeyman status. I mean there isn't a big bad soviet union around to be paranoid about anymore. Or just use a better word. Sanders is muuuuch more a social democrat than a socialist for example. I don't think so. I think he was being pragmatic about what can be achieved in the US but he definitely wanted the good stuff. Social democracy has a better historical track record of being the "good stuff" than actual socialism. Also if you think that Sanders wants to abolish private property, give the entire control of the means of production to the workers, end capitalism and take his ideas from Vladimir Lenin, you haven't been following. All he's fought for all his life is to make the US look like something like Denmark, not a hypothetical successful USSR fantasyland. But again, it's all about the ambiguity of the word socialism, and that's why it's a shit word. Sanders uses it in a French way, to mean, social democracy. And the older folk think that he wants what you want, and so of course they get scared and vote against it because no one except five guys want to retry Lenin but *this time* get it right. His program contained incentives for worker co-ops, which a social democrat has no use for and we socialists do. So yeah I've been following. Most social democrats are totally positive about workers co-op, what are you talking about? What kind of definitions are you using? Social democracy maintains a mixed economy between private owners and a strong welfare state. Co-ops are basically the difference between market socialism and social democracy. If you're for co-ops and a social democracy you're a socialist. Jesus, are there *any* nuances in your world or do you only work with 100% this or 100% that? It's not because you are positive about workers co-ops that you want to expropriate and nationalize the whole economy and consider anyone who owns a business a parasitic kulak. There is absolutely room for workers cooperatives in a social democracy, and most social democrats see that as a very good thing to be encouraged. Including Sanders. So again. Sanders wants a very strong welfare state, a highly regulated economy, high taxation, and, yes, help workers cooperatives when they are viable. It's the exact definition of a social democrat program. Well typically if your program contains incentives for something it's because you want more of that thing? The difference Biff is pointing out is that social democrats may encourage co-ops while accepting private ownership as a viable alternative, whereas socialists would like to abolish private ownership. Sanders is in the former camp.
I get what Biff is saying, I just believe he's incorrect. Having a social democracy and then pushing it left is literally the position of market socialism. Sanders wanted a social democracy and then he had incentives to go further left with more worker co-ops within his plan, and he called himself a socialist. There is a simple explanation there, and it's not "oh wow Sanders is an idiot he has confused two terms that have different definitions".
|
Northern Ireland27236 Posts
On November 06 2020 21:03 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2020 20:54 Belisarius wrote:On November 06 2020 20:38 Tictock wrote:On November 06 2020 20:18 Furikawari wrote:On November 06 2020 20:07 KungKras wrote:On November 06 2020 20:05 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 06 2020 20:04 KungKras wrote:On November 06 2020 20:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 06 2020 19:53 Slydie wrote:That page is very useful, thanks! This looks over. My bullet proof prediction: Trump gets North Carolina and Alaska Biden retains Nevada, Georgia and Arizona, and a Pennsylvania flip is inbound with incoming votes heavily trending Biden. The EC vote will not be that close in the end with 298 to 240. Might be that actually, Biden will be remembered to have performed very well, both in the popular vote and the electoral college. The way I see it, the only problem facing democrats is that they need to convince folks in many rural / poorer / southern states that just don't vote for them; which is just punishing considering how the system is designed. I know that centrists think that the whole "socialist" message is a suicide and progressive think that the centrist way has failed and is the root of all problems. I think they are both right and that the dems need a synthesis: truly progressive policies package in a way that won't scare the voters they trail with off. I hope that the longer time goes on since the cold war ended, "socialism" will lose its boogeyman status. I mean there isn't a big bad soviet union around to be paranoid about anymore. Or just use a better word. Sanders is muuuuch more a social democrat than a socialist for example. I'm still perplexed why Sanders didn't call himself a social democrat. I mean out of all the terms he could have used, it's the one that's most positively charged, and the one with the most success stories around the world under its banner. The people you want to convince don't give a shit about what's going on in the rest of the world anyway. What I retain from all of this is that your country is even more divided than what I thought. I still cannot understand how Trump got more votes that what he got in 2016, to a foreigner it's just crazy (understatement). To a native... it's downright disheartening. CNN had a short op-ed that summed it up fairly well, I thought. It's hardly a controversial position, but it really is beyond belief that this is truly what half of America seems to think. https://edition.cnn.com/2020/11/04/opinions/us-global-image-after-election-night-2020-wierson/index.htmlNo matter the outcome, America's standing in the world took a big hit on election night
Joe Biden may still end up winning this election, but no matter how you cut it, it was clear here and around the globe that roughly half of America believes that the character of our President doesn't matter all that much, an impeachment is meaningless and the Department of Justice really should serve as the chief executive's personal law firm.
More importantly, from a global perspective, roughly one in two of American voters signaled to the world that not only are capricious trade wars palatable, but long-standing global alliances like the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) don't matter anymore.
What about withholding funding from the World Health Organization amid a global pandemic that has claimed well over a million lives across the globe? Many voters apparently thought that was OK. Abrogating leadership on the existential issue of climate change? Another check. Not to mention what this split decision says about the US and our moral fabric on the topics of social justice, racial equality and inclusiveness.
[...]
Our friends across the world can no longer count on us to do the right thing. No matter who wins this election, America is already weaker for it. We had an opportunity as a country to turn a page on this dark chapter in our history, but we, as a people and a nation, came up well short.
Fool me once, and all that. The world is a much scarier place since Tuesday morning. I dislike this take by CNN. I think the rest of the world has a good idea of what America is about already, I don't think a lot of people's minds were changed by this particular election. It's abusing the circumstances to make a point, the point being that liberalism is good (as opposed to, "a lesser evil" for the left, and "the demon seed of Satan" for the right). I know a lot of people will go back asleep because the bad guy is no longer president but I hope enough people keep paying attention, otherwise in four years we'll be back to this - and the fascist will be in better shape than he was this time, it's not like Biden is likely to deliver a nice future for the average American.
Is relief the general consensus around the place?
If anything I find 2020 more worrying than 2016, where a (in that capacity) relatively unknown quantity, and a rather radical departure from norms was injected into the system. While some of it was predictable to many of us, at least it was a case of people voting for a non-politician without a record in that sphere. Candidates promise many things after all.
That his vote increased after a 4 years that was actually somehow far worse than I had initially feared, as well as some of the behaviour we've been seeing around the election, that's not really a problem bubbling beneath the surface, it's clearly visible.
|
On November 06 2020 21:04 Belisarius wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2020 21:00 KungKras wrote:On November 06 2020 20:54 Belisarius wrote:On November 06 2020 20:38 Tictock wrote:
To a native... it's downright disheartening. CNN had a short op-ed that summed it up fairly well, I thought. It's hardly a controversial position, but it really is beyond belief that this is truly what half of America seems to think. https://edition.cnn.com/2020/11/04/opinions/us-global-image-after-election-night-2020-wierson/index.htmlNo matter the outcome, America's standing in the world took a big hit on election night
Joe Biden may still end up winning this election, but no matter how you cut it, it was clear here and around the globe that roughly half of America believes that the character of our President doesn't matter all that much, an impeachment is meaningless and the Department of Justice really should serve as the chief executive's personal law firm.
More importantly, from a global perspective, roughly one in two of American voters signaled to the world that not only are capricious trade wars palatable, but long-standing global alliances like the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) don't matter anymore.
What about withholding funding from the World Health Organization amid a global pandemic that has claimed well over a million lives across the globe? Many voters apparently thought that was OK. Abrogating leadership on the existential issue of climate change? Another check. Not to mention what this split decision says about the US and our moral fabric on the topics of social justice, racial equality and inclusiveness.
[...]
Our friends across the world can no longer count on us to do the right thing. No matter who wins this election, America is already weaker for it. We had an opportunity as a country to turn a page on this dark chapter in our history, but we, as a people and a nation, came up well short.
Fool me once, and all that. The world is a much scarier place since Tuesday morning. It wouldn't surprise me if the EU starts working on their own alternative to NATO, just in case another lunatic becomes president again. EDIT: Taiwan must be really worried about the future also. Taiwan is just screwed. Utterly screwed. I have the deepest admiration for their principles and determination, but I really can't see any path forward for them. Xinjiang is the future of Hong Kong, is the future of Taiwan, is the future of any middle power that China pulls into its orbit, imo. The last category includes us, so things are not looking good here either.
Is Australia being pulled into China's orbit? Wouldn't the connections to europe prevent that?
|
On November 06 2020 21:03 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2020 20:54 Belisarius wrote:On November 06 2020 20:38 Tictock wrote:On November 06 2020 20:18 Furikawari wrote:On November 06 2020 20:07 KungKras wrote:On November 06 2020 20:05 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 06 2020 20:04 KungKras wrote:On November 06 2020 20:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 06 2020 19:53 Slydie wrote:That page is very useful, thanks! This looks over. My bullet proof prediction: Trump gets North Carolina and Alaska Biden retains Nevada, Georgia and Arizona, and a Pennsylvania flip is inbound with incoming votes heavily trending Biden. The EC vote will not be that close in the end with 298 to 240. Might be that actually, Biden will be remembered to have performed very well, both in the popular vote and the electoral college. The way I see it, the only problem facing democrats is that they need to convince folks in many rural / poorer / southern states that just don't vote for them; which is just punishing considering how the system is designed. I know that centrists think that the whole "socialist" message is a suicide and progressive think that the centrist way has failed and is the root of all problems. I think they are both right and that the dems need a synthesis: truly progressive policies package in a way that won't scare the voters they trail with off. I hope that the longer time goes on since the cold war ended, "socialism" will lose its boogeyman status. I mean there isn't a big bad soviet union around to be paranoid about anymore. Or just use a better word. Sanders is muuuuch more a social democrat than a socialist for example. I'm still perplexed why Sanders didn't call himself a social democrat. I mean out of all the terms he could have used, it's the one that's most positively charged, and the one with the most success stories around the world under its banner. The people you want to convince don't give a shit about what's going on in the rest of the world anyway. What I retain from all of this is that your country is even more divided than what I thought. I still cannot understand how Trump got more votes that what he got in 2016, to a foreigner it's just crazy (understatement). To a native... it's downright disheartening. CNN had a short op-ed that summed it up fairly well, I thought. It's hardly a controversial position, but it really is beyond belief that this is truly what half of America seems to think. https://edition.cnn.com/2020/11/04/opinions/us-global-image-after-election-night-2020-wierson/index.htmlNo matter the outcome, America's standing in the world took a big hit on election night
Joe Biden may still end up winning this election, but no matter how you cut it, it was clear here and around the globe that roughly half of America believes that the character of our President doesn't matter all that much, an impeachment is meaningless and the Department of Justice really should serve as the chief executive's personal law firm.
More importantly, from a global perspective, roughly one in two of American voters signaled to the world that not only are capricious trade wars palatable, but long-standing global alliances like the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) don't matter anymore.
What about withholding funding from the World Health Organization amid a global pandemic that has claimed well over a million lives across the globe? Many voters apparently thought that was OK. Abrogating leadership on the existential issue of climate change? Another check. Not to mention what this split decision says about the US and our moral fabric on the topics of social justice, racial equality and inclusiveness.
[...]
Our friends across the world can no longer count on us to do the right thing. No matter who wins this election, America is already weaker for it. We had an opportunity as a country to turn a page on this dark chapter in our history, but we, as a people and a nation, came up well short.
Fool me once, and all that. The world is a much scarier place since Tuesday morning. I dislike this take by CNN. I think the rest of the world has a good idea of what America is about already, I don't think a lot of people's minds were changed by this particular election. It's abusing the circumstances to make a point, the point being that liberalism is good (as opposed to, "a lesser evil" for the left, and "the demon seed of Satan" for the right). I know a lot of people will go back asleep because the bad guy is no longer president but I hope enough people keep paying attention, otherwise in four years we'll be back to this - and the fascist will be in better shape than he was this time, it's not like Biden is likely to deliver a nice future for the average American.
I think you are simply wrong.
The US had an opportunity to utterly repudiate the handbrake turn it made for years ago. Most of the world expected it to. It has failed to do so, and that has enormous repurcussions globally.
Locally, yes, I can understand the position that Trump and Biden are the same. I think it's incorrect, but I can see how people within the US, totally unrepresented by the most dysfunctional democracy in the western world, might reach that conclusion.
To Merkel, Macron, Trudeau, Moon Jae-yin, Abe and everyone else, it is nonsense.
|
On November 06 2020 21:05 Gorsameth wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2020 21:00 KungKras wrote:On November 06 2020 20:54 Belisarius wrote:On November 06 2020 20:38 Tictock wrote:On November 06 2020 20:18 Furikawari wrote:On November 06 2020 20:07 KungKras wrote:On November 06 2020 20:05 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 06 2020 20:04 KungKras wrote:On November 06 2020 20:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 06 2020 19:53 Slydie wrote:[quote] That page is very useful, thanks! This looks over. My bullet proof prediction: Trump gets North Carolina and Alaska Biden retains Nevada, Georgia and Arizona, and a Pennsylvania flip is inbound with incoming votes heavily trending Biden. The EC vote will not be that close in the end with 298 to 240. Might be that actually, Biden will be remembered to have performed very well, both in the popular vote and the electoral college. The way I see it, the only problem facing democrats is that they need to convince folks in many rural / poorer / southern states that just don't vote for them; which is just punishing considering how the system is designed. I know that centrists think that the whole "socialist" message is a suicide and progressive think that the centrist way has failed and is the root of all problems. I think they are both right and that the dems need a synthesis: truly progressive policies package in a way that won't scare the voters they trail with off. I hope that the longer time goes on since the cold war ended, "socialism" will lose its boogeyman status. I mean there isn't a big bad soviet union around to be paranoid about anymore. Or just use a better word. Sanders is muuuuch more a social democrat than a socialist for example. I'm still perplexed why Sanders didn't call himself a social democrat. I mean out of all the terms he could have used, it's the one that's most positively charged, and the one with the most success stories around the world under its banner. The people you want to convince don't give a shit about what's going on in the rest of the world anyway. What I retain from all of this is that your country is even more divided than what I thought. I still cannot understand how Trump got more votes that what he got in 2016, to a foreigner it's just crazy (understatement). To a native... it's downright disheartening. CNN had a short op-ed that summed it up fairly well, I thought. It's hardly a controversial position, but it really is beyond belief that this is truly what half of America seems to think. https://edition.cnn.com/2020/11/04/opinions/us-global-image-after-election-night-2020-wierson/index.htmlNo matter the outcome, America's standing in the world took a big hit on election night
Joe Biden may still end up winning this election, but no matter how you cut it, it was clear here and around the globe that roughly half of America believes that the character of our President doesn't matter all that much, an impeachment is meaningless and the Department of Justice really should serve as the chief executive's personal law firm.
More importantly, from a global perspective, roughly one in two of American voters signaled to the world that not only are capricious trade wars palatable, but long-standing global alliances like the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) don't matter anymore.
What about withholding funding from the World Health Organization amid a global pandemic that has claimed well over a million lives across the globe? Many voters apparently thought that was OK. Abrogating leadership on the existential issue of climate change? Another check. Not to mention what this split decision says about the US and our moral fabric on the topics of social justice, racial equality and inclusiveness.
[...]
Our friends across the world can no longer count on us to do the right thing. No matter who wins this election, America is already weaker for it. We had an opportunity as a country to turn a page on this dark chapter in our history, but we, as a people and a nation, came up well short.
Fool me once, and all that. The world is a much scarier place since Tuesday morning. It wouldn't surprise me if the EU starts working on their own alternative to NATO, just in case another lunatic becomes president again. EDIT: Taiwan must be really worried about the future also. We've already seen a lot more talk about a European army ever since Trump got elected. The world knows the US is no longer a reliable ally.
Yup, and it may be a necessity. I wonder what Japan and South Korea are going to do. They need NATO a lot. If it disappears, would Europe be able to fill that role? Maybe the British need to rebuild their massive fleets again to make it work?
|
FWIW I don't think 2020 indicates much new or different when compared with 2016, Trump's increased votes likely came from a source we have known about for some time, conservative leaning minorities with very specific voting ideals.
Edit: I should add that I do think Biden winning has significant, largely positive consequences by comparison with Trump having won instead.
|
On November 06 2020 21:10 KungKras wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2020 21:04 Belisarius wrote:On November 06 2020 21:00 KungKras wrote:On November 06 2020 20:54 Belisarius wrote:On November 06 2020 20:38 Tictock wrote:
To a native... it's downright disheartening. CNN had a short op-ed that summed it up fairly well, I thought. It's hardly a controversial position, but it really is beyond belief that this is truly what half of America seems to think. https://edition.cnn.com/2020/11/04/opinions/us-global-image-after-election-night-2020-wierson/index.htmlNo matter the outcome, America's standing in the world took a big hit on election night
Joe Biden may still end up winning this election, but no matter how you cut it, it was clear here and around the globe that roughly half of America believes that the character of our President doesn't matter all that much, an impeachment is meaningless and the Department of Justice really should serve as the chief executive's personal law firm.
More importantly, from a global perspective, roughly one in two of American voters signaled to the world that not only are capricious trade wars palatable, but long-standing global alliances like the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) don't matter anymore.
What about withholding funding from the World Health Organization amid a global pandemic that has claimed well over a million lives across the globe? Many voters apparently thought that was OK. Abrogating leadership on the existential issue of climate change? Another check. Not to mention what this split decision says about the US and our moral fabric on the topics of social justice, racial equality and inclusiveness.
[...]
Our friends across the world can no longer count on us to do the right thing. No matter who wins this election, America is already weaker for it. We had an opportunity as a country to turn a page on this dark chapter in our history, but we, as a people and a nation, came up well short.
Fool me once, and all that. The world is a much scarier place since Tuesday morning. It wouldn't surprise me if the EU starts working on their own alternative to NATO, just in case another lunatic becomes president again. EDIT: Taiwan must be really worried about the future also. Taiwan is just screwed. Utterly screwed. I have the deepest admiration for their principles and determination, but I really can't see any path forward for them. Xinjiang is the future of Hong Kong, is the future of Taiwan, is the future of any middle power that China pulls into its orbit, imo. The last category includes us, so things are not looking good here either. Is Australia being pulled into China's orbit? Wouldn't the connections to europe prevent that?
Australia never struck me particularly connected to europe, to be honest. I might be wrong here, but the only real ties are to the commonwealth (more or less). And i'm pretty sure that i can find a few people who want to get as far away from the queen as they can.
As i said, i might be wrong here, but that's my impression.
|
On November 06 2020 21:09 Nebuchad wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2020 21:03 maybenexttime wrote:On November 06 2020 20:52 Nebuchad wrote:On November 06 2020 20:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 06 2020 20:45 Nebuchad wrote:On November 06 2020 20:41 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 06 2020 20:40 Nebuchad wrote:On November 06 2020 20:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 06 2020 20:20 Nebuchad wrote:On November 06 2020 20:05 Biff The Understudy wrote:
[quote]
Or just use a better word. Sanders is muuuuch more a social democrat than a socialist for example. I don't think so. I think he was being pragmatic about what can be achieved in the US but he definitely wanted the good stuff. Social democracy has a better historical track record of being the "good stuff" than actual socialism. Also if you think that Sanders wants to abolish private property, give the entire control of the means of production to the workers, end capitalism and take his ideas from Vladimir Lenin, you haven't been following. All he's fought for all his life is to make the US look like something like Denmark, not a hypothetical successful USSR fantasyland. But again, it's all about the ambiguity of the word socialism, and that's why it's a shit word. Sanders uses it in a French way, to mean, social democracy. And the older folk think that he wants what you want, and so of course they get scared and vote against it because no one except five guys want to retry Lenin but *this time* get it right. His program contained incentives for worker co-ops, which a social democrat has no use for and we socialists do. So yeah I've been following. Most social democrats are totally positive about workers co-op, what are you talking about? What kind of definitions are you using? Social democracy maintains a mixed economy between private owners and a strong welfare state. Co-ops are basically the difference between market socialism and social democracy. If you're for co-ops and a social democracy you're a socialist. Jesus, are there *any* nuances in your world or do you only work with 100% this or 100% that? It's not because you are positive about workers co-ops that you want to expropriate and nationalize the whole economy and consider anyone who owns a business a parasitic kulak. There is absolutely room for workers cooperatives in a social democracy, and most social democrats see that as a very good thing to be encouraged. Including Sanders. So again. Sanders wants a very strong welfare state, a highly regulated economy, high taxation, and, yes, help workers cooperatives when they are viable. It's the exact definition of a social democrat program. Well typically if your program contains incentives for something it's because you want more of that thing? The difference Biff is pointing out is that social democrats may encourage co-ops while accepting private ownership as a viable alternative, whereas socialists would like to abolish private ownership. Sanders is in the former camp. I get what Biff is saying, I just believe he's incorrect. Having a social democracy and then pushing it left is literally the position of market socialism. Sanders wanted a social democracy and then he had incentives to go further left with more worker co-ops within his plan, and he called himself a socialist. There is a simple explanation there, and it's not "oh wow Sanders is an idiot he has confused two terms that have different definitions".
Oh he is not an idiot, he just thought that making people like you or GH believe he shared your ideas was worth scaring off voters that he knew wouldn't vote for him anyway. I think it's a bad idea. Winning some "revolutionary" young voters is not worth being mischaracterized as Maduro by older voters or moderates.
Maybe you should stop thinking in little boxes and black and white theoretical definitions with zero regard to any kind of nuance. Because according to you guys, and if I follow, I am now a neo-liberal socialist. The level of absurd we reach with these lines of thought of yours is just painful.
|
On November 06 2020 21:14 Belisarius wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2020 21:03 Nebuchad wrote:On November 06 2020 20:54 Belisarius wrote:On November 06 2020 20:38 Tictock wrote:On November 06 2020 20:18 Furikawari wrote:On November 06 2020 20:07 KungKras wrote:On November 06 2020 20:05 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 06 2020 20:04 KungKras wrote:On November 06 2020 20:01 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 06 2020 19:53 Slydie wrote:[quote] That page is very useful, thanks! This looks over. My bullet proof prediction: Trump gets North Carolina and Alaska Biden retains Nevada, Georgia and Arizona, and a Pennsylvania flip is inbound with incoming votes heavily trending Biden. The EC vote will not be that close in the end with 298 to 240. Might be that actually, Biden will be remembered to have performed very well, both in the popular vote and the electoral college. The way I see it, the only problem facing democrats is that they need to convince folks in many rural / poorer / southern states that just don't vote for them; which is just punishing considering how the system is designed. I know that centrists think that the whole "socialist" message is a suicide and progressive think that the centrist way has failed and is the root of all problems. I think they are both right and that the dems need a synthesis: truly progressive policies package in a way that won't scare the voters they trail with off. I hope that the longer time goes on since the cold war ended, "socialism" will lose its boogeyman status. I mean there isn't a big bad soviet union around to be paranoid about anymore. Or just use a better word. Sanders is muuuuch more a social democrat than a socialist for example. I'm still perplexed why Sanders didn't call himself a social democrat. I mean out of all the terms he could have used, it's the one that's most positively charged, and the one with the most success stories around the world under its banner. The people you want to convince don't give a shit about what's going on in the rest of the world anyway. What I retain from all of this is that your country is even more divided than what I thought. I still cannot understand how Trump got more votes that what he got in 2016, to a foreigner it's just crazy (understatement). To a native... it's downright disheartening. CNN had a short op-ed that summed it up fairly well, I thought. It's hardly a controversial position, but it really is beyond belief that this is truly what half of America seems to think. https://edition.cnn.com/2020/11/04/opinions/us-global-image-after-election-night-2020-wierson/index.htmlNo matter the outcome, America's standing in the world took a big hit on election night
Joe Biden may still end up winning this election, but no matter how you cut it, it was clear here and around the globe that roughly half of America believes that the character of our President doesn't matter all that much, an impeachment is meaningless and the Department of Justice really should serve as the chief executive's personal law firm.
More importantly, from a global perspective, roughly one in two of American voters signaled to the world that not only are capricious trade wars palatable, but long-standing global alliances like the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) don't matter anymore.
What about withholding funding from the World Health Organization amid a global pandemic that has claimed well over a million lives across the globe? Many voters apparently thought that was OK. Abrogating leadership on the existential issue of climate change? Another check. Not to mention what this split decision says about the US and our moral fabric on the topics of social justice, racial equality and inclusiveness.
[...]
Our friends across the world can no longer count on us to do the right thing. No matter who wins this election, America is already weaker for it. We had an opportunity as a country to turn a page on this dark chapter in our history, but we, as a people and a nation, came up well short.
Fool me once, and all that. The world is a much scarier place since Tuesday morning. I dislike this take by CNN. I think the rest of the world has a good idea of what America is about already, I don't think a lot of people's minds were changed by this particular election. It's abusing the circumstances to make a point, the point being that liberalism is good (as opposed to, "a lesser evil" for the left, and "the demon seed of Satan" for the right). I know a lot of people will go back asleep because the bad guy is no longer president but I hope enough people keep paying attention, otherwise in four years we'll be back to this - and the fascist will be in better shape than he was this time, it's not like Biden is likely to deliver a nice future for the average American. I think you are simply wrong. The US had an opportunity to utterly repudiate the handbrake turn it made for years ago. Most of the world expected it to. It has failed to do so, and that has enormous repurcussions globally. Locally, yes, I can understand the position that Trump and Biden are the same. I think it's incorrect, but I can see how people within the US, totally unrepresented by the most dysfunctional democracy in the western world, might reach that conclusion. To Merkel, Macron, Trudeau, Moon Jae-yin, Abe and everyone else, it is nonsense.
I don't think a lot of people believe Trump and Biden are the same, that's a silly take. I also think expecting a landslide victory by Biden was kind of weird. If he maintains Georgia and Arizona, I'd say that is a much better result than average for him.
|
On November 06 2020 21:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2020 21:09 Nebuchad wrote:On November 06 2020 21:03 maybenexttime wrote:On November 06 2020 20:52 Nebuchad wrote:On November 06 2020 20:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 06 2020 20:45 Nebuchad wrote:On November 06 2020 20:41 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 06 2020 20:40 Nebuchad wrote:On November 06 2020 20:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 06 2020 20:20 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
I don't think so. I think he was being pragmatic about what can be achieved in the US but he definitely wanted the good stuff. Social democracy has a better historical track record of being the "good stuff" than actual socialism. Also if you think that Sanders wants to abolish private property, give the entire control of the means of production to the workers, end capitalism and take his ideas from Vladimir Lenin, you haven't been following. All he's fought for all his life is to make the US look like something like Denmark, not a hypothetical successful USSR fantasyland. But again, it's all about the ambiguity of the word socialism, and that's why it's a shit word. Sanders uses it in a French way, to mean, social democracy. And the older folk think that he wants what you want, and so of course they get scared and vote against it because no one except five guys want to retry Lenin but *this time* get it right. His program contained incentives for worker co-ops, which a social democrat has no use for and we socialists do. So yeah I've been following. Most social democrats are totally positive about workers co-op, what are you talking about? What kind of definitions are you using? Social democracy maintains a mixed economy between private owners and a strong welfare state. Co-ops are basically the difference between market socialism and social democracy. If you're for co-ops and a social democracy you're a socialist. Jesus, are there *any* nuances in your world or do you only work with 100% this or 100% that? It's not because you are positive about workers co-ops that you want to expropriate and nationalize the whole economy and consider anyone who owns a business a parasitic kulak. There is absolutely room for workers cooperatives in a social democracy, and most social democrats see that as a very good thing to be encouraged. Including Sanders. So again. Sanders wants a very strong welfare state, a highly regulated economy, high taxation, and, yes, help workers cooperatives when they are viable. It's the exact definition of a social democrat program. Well typically if your program contains incentives for something it's because you want more of that thing? The difference Biff is pointing out is that social democrats may encourage co-ops while accepting private ownership as a viable alternative, whereas socialists would like to abolish private ownership. Sanders is in the former camp. I get what Biff is saying, I just believe he's incorrect. Having a social democracy and then pushing it left is literally the position of market socialism. Sanders wanted a social democracy and then he had incentives to go further left with more worker co-ops within his plan, and he called himself a socialist. There is a simple explanation there, and it's not "oh wow Sanders is an idiot he has confused two terms that have different definitions". Oh he is not an idiot, he just thought that making people like you or GH believe he shared your ideas One of the first things I learned about Sanders around his presidential run was that he wasn't a revolutionary socialist (as I was learning what that was). That was when I would have identified as a progressive or social democrat.
|
removed,i have to think about this a bit more.
|
On November 06 2020 21:15 m4ini wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2020 21:10 KungKras wrote:On November 06 2020 21:04 Belisarius wrote:On November 06 2020 21:00 KungKras wrote:On November 06 2020 20:54 Belisarius wrote:On November 06 2020 20:38 Tictock wrote:
To a native... it's downright disheartening. CNN had a short op-ed that summed it up fairly well, I thought. It's hardly a controversial position, but it really is beyond belief that this is truly what half of America seems to think. https://edition.cnn.com/2020/11/04/opinions/us-global-image-after-election-night-2020-wierson/index.htmlNo matter the outcome, America's standing in the world took a big hit on election night
Joe Biden may still end up winning this election, but no matter how you cut it, it was clear here and around the globe that roughly half of America believes that the character of our President doesn't matter all that much, an impeachment is meaningless and the Department of Justice really should serve as the chief executive's personal law firm.
More importantly, from a global perspective, roughly one in two of American voters signaled to the world that not only are capricious trade wars palatable, but long-standing global alliances like the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) don't matter anymore.
What about withholding funding from the World Health Organization amid a global pandemic that has claimed well over a million lives across the globe? Many voters apparently thought that was OK. Abrogating leadership on the existential issue of climate change? Another check. Not to mention what this split decision says about the US and our moral fabric on the topics of social justice, racial equality and inclusiveness.
[...]
Our friends across the world can no longer count on us to do the right thing. No matter who wins this election, America is already weaker for it. We had an opportunity as a country to turn a page on this dark chapter in our history, but we, as a people and a nation, came up well short.
Fool me once, and all that. The world is a much scarier place since Tuesday morning. It wouldn't surprise me if the EU starts working on their own alternative to NATO, just in case another lunatic becomes president again. EDIT: Taiwan must be really worried about the future also. Taiwan is just screwed. Utterly screwed. I have the deepest admiration for their principles and determination, but I really can't see any path forward for them. Xinjiang is the future of Hong Kong, is the future of Taiwan, is the future of any middle power that China pulls into its orbit, imo. The last category includes us, so things are not looking good here either. Is Australia being pulled into China's orbit? Wouldn't the connections to europe prevent that? Australia never struck me particularly connected to europe, to be honest. I might be wrong here, but the only real ties are to the commonwealth (more or less). And i'm pretty sure that i can find a few people who want to get as far away from the queen as they can. As i said, i might be wrong here, but that's my impression.
We're not. We are in a terrible position. The overwhelming majority of our exports are to China, and our security politics are totally beholden to the US.
We have straddled this gap with increasing concern and groinal-strain for some time, but it is becoming completely untenable now. Since we (inadvisably, imo) lead the charge for an inquiry into the origin of covid, Xi has been slapping blocks and tarrifs on our industries left and right, generally for spurious reasons like falling some nonexistent QC test.
Our tangible links to the EU are surprisingly weak, despite a very close ideological alignment. Also, with respect, the EU has little real power projection in Asia and would likely have their hands full with Russia if things hit the fan.
|
Rudy Giuliani alleges that Joe Biden voted 5,000 times this election. Yes, five thousand. I have a feeling that Mr. Giuliani is slightly stretching the truth here.
|
On November 06 2020 21:16 Biff The Understudy wrote:Show nested quote +On November 06 2020 21:09 Nebuchad wrote:On November 06 2020 21:03 maybenexttime wrote:On November 06 2020 20:52 Nebuchad wrote:On November 06 2020 20:51 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 06 2020 20:45 Nebuchad wrote:On November 06 2020 20:41 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 06 2020 20:40 Nebuchad wrote:On November 06 2020 20:31 Biff The Understudy wrote:On November 06 2020 20:20 Nebuchad wrote:
[quote]
I don't think so. I think he was being pragmatic about what can be achieved in the US but he definitely wanted the good stuff. Social democracy has a better historical track record of being the "good stuff" than actual socialism. Also if you think that Sanders wants to abolish private property, give the entire control of the means of production to the workers, end capitalism and take his ideas from Vladimir Lenin, you haven't been following. All he's fought for all his life is to make the US look like something like Denmark, not a hypothetical successful USSR fantasyland. But again, it's all about the ambiguity of the word socialism, and that's why it's a shit word. Sanders uses it in a French way, to mean, social democracy. And the older folk think that he wants what you want, and so of course they get scared and vote against it because no one except five guys want to retry Lenin but *this time* get it right. His program contained incentives for worker co-ops, which a social democrat has no use for and we socialists do. So yeah I've been following. Most social democrats are totally positive about workers co-op, what are you talking about? What kind of definitions are you using? Social democracy maintains a mixed economy between private owners and a strong welfare state. Co-ops are basically the difference between market socialism and social democracy. If you're for co-ops and a social democracy you're a socialist. Jesus, are there *any* nuances in your world or do you only work with 100% this or 100% that? It's not because you are positive about workers co-ops that you want to expropriate and nationalize the whole economy and consider anyone who owns a business a parasitic kulak. There is absolutely room for workers cooperatives in a social democracy, and most social democrats see that as a very good thing to be encouraged. Including Sanders. So again. Sanders wants a very strong welfare state, a highly regulated economy, high taxation, and, yes, help workers cooperatives when they are viable. It's the exact definition of a social democrat program. Well typically if your program contains incentives for something it's because you want more of that thing? The difference Biff is pointing out is that social democrats may encourage co-ops while accepting private ownership as a viable alternative, whereas socialists would like to abolish private ownership. Sanders is in the former camp. I get what Biff is saying, I just believe he's incorrect. Having a social democracy and then pushing it left is literally the position of market socialism. Sanders wanted a social democracy and then he had incentives to go further left with more worker co-ops within his plan, and he called himself a socialist. There is a simple explanation there, and it's not "oh wow Sanders is an idiot he has confused two terms that have different definitions". Oh he is not an idiot, he just thought that making people like you or GH believe he shared your ideas was worth scaring off voters that he knew wouldn't vote for him anyway. I think it's a bad idea. Winning some "revolutionary" young voters is not worth being mischaracterized as Maduro by older voters or moderates. Maybe you should stop thinking in little boxes and black and white theoretical definitions with zero regard to any kind of nuance. Because according to you guys, and if I follow, I am now a neo-liberal socialist. The level of absurd we reach with these lines of thought of yours is just painful.
Oh I don't think you're a "neo-liberal socialist social democrat", I just think you're dishonest. That's how I've solved this little incoherence long ago.
You are now arguing that Sanders was interested in pretending he was further left than social democrat to get the GH vote, even though it must have been as obvious to him as it is to you and me that the US is, as a society, decidedly to the right of GH. That electoral strategy would be fairly stupid. I stand by the idea that my explanation is much more logical and reasonable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://imgur.com/nvKSHlg)
