The Political & Philosophy Thread

[zabu of nΩd]

RE Biden; I could never in good faith vote for someone who strongly argued to allow Bush to invade Iraq. He was the chair of the senate's foreign relations committee and he solely picked the 18 witnesses in the senate hearings, majority of which were pro-war and pro-regime change. He's a neocon piece of shit through and through and his mind is so garbled that he actually forgot he championed that invasion. I have no faith he could withstand pressures to apply neocon foreign policy if he took the office.

If I lived over there I'd be for Tulsi (she has no chance obv) and failing that, I'm for Bernie next. Honestly almost solely because of his anti-neocon positions.

Personally I think there's a lot more to the calculus of global wellbeing than neocon policy. The number of people in extreme poverty has gone down by well over a billion in the past 30 years, and I think free trade deserves a lot of credit for that. Sanders has always been a protectionist who blindly opposes trade deals because they're "bad for American workers", even though those deals are probably responsible for a huge drop in Americans' cost of living, and the fact that no one is having kids anymore means we're going to have chronic labor shortages from now on.

Sanders also opposed TARP in 2008, which is easily one of the stupidest and most dangerous policy positions any of the major candidates has ever taken. "Banks are evil, just let them fail! Oh wait, now no one has any money because the banks have shut down. Derp!" Imagine how much worse the Global Financial Crisis would have been if the US banks hadn't been bailed out.

For me, it's between Sanders and Warren, and I'm leaning toward Warren. I agree that Sanders's economic policies border are impractical, and risk alienating a lot of potential moderates. On the other hand, the anti-billionaire thing could woo others.

I see Warren as the most analytical mind onstage. She's wicked smart, resilient, and her economic plan (while still extreme) carries more water. As far as fiascoes go, the "Pocahontas" thing is way less malicious than stop-and-frisk; and her faux pas accusation against Sanders doesn't discolor her as a candidate, for me.

I see your point. But yeah, her economic plan is still extreme, and a recent independent analysis of her health plan puts its cost in a similar ballpark as Sanders'. She also only has support from ~12% of voters based on national poll averages, and that percentage has been declining, so regardless of her policy views I think she's too much of a long shot.

 

[CiG]

I agree that neocon policy isn't the be-all-end-all consideration, but you asked and I simply answered because that's where my main interest lies. Especially as someone outside looking in at one of the countries whose foreign meddling and warmongering is most out of control in all of the west. When America engages in conflict, we all get dragged into it (especially when faggots like John Howard are in office).

I think the rise of automation tends to balance the decline of breeding into the labour force. I also agree that free trade is a good thing but I think social programs deserve some credit towards that end also. Bernie is an idealist and I don't agree with his economics really at all, but like Trump I value him as a wrench into the system, and also like Trump I think the system would counter-balance any overly extreme policies he might try to impose.

Some stuff on Bloomberg's campaign:

Bloomberg now endorsed by more than 100 mayors, including a former Biden supporter.

Former New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg has now gained the backing of more than 100 mayors, according to his campaign.

Wiki: List of Michael Bloomberg 2020 presidential campaign endorsements.

 

[Blurry_Dreams]

so now it kinda looks like we actually have a shot at an ex-vice-president becoming president

biden's michigan win deals blow to sanders - Google Search