2020 US presidential election

Anything not relating to the X-Universe games (general tech talk, other games...) belongs here. Please read the rules before posting.

Moderator: Moderators for English X Forum

Post Reply
User avatar
Observe
Posts: 5079
Joined: Fri, 30. Dec 05, 17:47
xr

Re: 2020 US presidential election

Post by Observe » Sat, 3. Aug 19, 17:17

My take from the latest round of Democratic debates in order of preference:

1. Andrew Yang
2. Pete Buttigieg
3. Bernie Sanders
4. Jay Inslee
5. Julian Castro
6. Cory Booker
7. Eliabeth Warren
8. Kamala Harris
9. Any one of the others
10. Joe Biden

Andrew Yang because of his views on human-centered capitalism (humans are more important than money). Universal basic income.
Pete Buttigieg because he is highly intelligent and has a 'clarity' (not sure how else to put it) about him that many of the others lack.
Bernie Sanders because...well because he's Bernie. What can I say.
Jay Inslee because climate change is his highest priority.

I put Joe Biden last because his time is past. He's a good enough man, but it's time for him to hang up his hat.

Mightysword
Posts: 4350
Joined: Wed, 10. Mar 04, 05:11
x3tc

Re: 2020 US presidential election

Post by Mightysword » Fri, 13. Dec 19, 07:51

In respect for the people properly wanting to talk about the recent election in the UK in the Brexit thread itself, I''ll put my reflection what it means for the US election in this thread instead.

While in the past I know there are other posters (from the UK) challenged me that the media is very neutral with equal pull on the issue. And as someone not living in the UK I will assume ignorant in not knowing the truth. But here once I again I can only state what I see with my own eyes. In the running up to this election, Boris and conservative had been pretty much hammering on as the bad guys. In fact, in the last couple days when sign started to show it would be an unexpected majority for Conservative, it looked almost like all stop are pulled in vilifying Boris, he's pretty much got the Trump treatment in British media - again, from whatever corner I have access to.

Just to be clear, even though I'm not from UK, this result sadden me since I had always hoped the UK would somehow reverse course and stay in the EC. And I definitely don't have high opinion of Boris both as a person and as a politician. However, I'm not making this reflection as an argument about fact, deserve or under-serve, true or false, but merely as an observable pattern. Specifically the relationship between the (negative) noise generated around an individual (Boris), and how it proved pretty much irrelevant at the end. This one reddit post which received the most up-vote and most acolytes since the result was announced put it best:
I'll be honest: things like this make me realize what a bubble I live in by getting so much news from reddit and I need to diversify. I've seen nothing but posts about what a POS Johnson is and how great Corbyn is that I assumed Corbyn was going to win comfortably. He wasn't even close.

The reddit demo isn't everyone and suppresses anything that goes against our worldview.
And before anyone dismiss this as "oh it's reddit, what you expect?", this is simply an example of what I have argue for in the last three years. I had many time engaged other posters talking about "mainstream, having platform to voice an opinion, the loud minority and the silence majority ...etc...", and at this point I feel one has to be in deep denial to not see the pattern in the Brexit Referendum, the 2016 US election, and this 2019 general election. Last week the BBC posted an article on how this UK election will serve as a pretty good basic to form an educated guess what will happen next year in the US. And I think it's safe to say the result tonight will leave Democrat and Republican with two very opposite emotion, and you know there will be one man laughing in his sleep tonight in the White House.

It's a conflicted feeling for me though. On one hand, I'm sadden by the result itself but on the other hand, I'm kinda relish to see that after a decade plus of this style of politic, it seems to losing its effectiveness. The canceling culture, suppression of unpopular opinion, and the vilification of anyone disagree no longer work. It's the kind of emotion that you are sad that someone died, but at the same time you hope that death mayharp bringing in new change. I hope the Democrat in the US, and perhaps the progressive wings globally are taking notes that the voting populate seemed to have moved beyond the tactic that had served them well in the last 12-15 years. Some corner in the UK right now are blaming labour defeat on a weak and indecisive Corbyn. But even if they're right, that only serve to emphasize the fact that the voting dynamic had shifted to the view that if one want to be elect, he/she must present themselves in better light and not simply count on making the bad guy out of the opponents.


Again it goes back to something that had often pop-up in the Trump thread: if Democrat really want to win the WH in 2020, then they should really stop being obsessive with Trump, and instead diverse whatever energy they are wasting on that endeavor into presenting a strong, united and capable candidate instead. Anyone on the left, if they are willing to step out of the echo chamber for a bit and look at thing objectively should realize "you can not damage Trump more than you already did". Even if you find another 101 things to shackle him with scandal and impeachable offenses, I feel we're already at a point that no one else but the resident of the echo chamber still care. All it gonna take is a few more good job reports, and the economy keeping up steam for another years and Trump will have a better shot then most people will want to admit. But IMO, the thing that will help Trump the most next year is when Democrat can only have their own version of Corbyn going up against Trump. Going back to that reddit post, the sooner the left realize they're living in their own moral/mainstream/whateveryouwanttocallit bubble, the better a shot they will have at Trump. Until then, they can keep "getting outraged and surprised".
Reading comprehension is hard.
Reading with prejudice makes comprehension harder.

User avatar
Masterbagger
Posts: 1080
Joined: Tue, 14. Oct 14, 00:49
x4

Re: 2020 US presidential election

Post by Masterbagger » Sat, 14. Dec 19, 04:46

I concur with your take on what happened in the UK and I see a lot of similarity to 2016 Trump. I caught that reddit post too and it made a lot of sense to me since the politics reddit is completely one sided on opinion and the trump reddit has been shown administrative prejudice for years. There is no organized conservative presence of any significance. It gets silenced or shouted down by the mob. It gets hostile real quick too. I've said before that the best thing about this little forum is that we have years of discussion about Trump that is mostly civil. That is way better than the internet at large is able to achieve. Politics in general have become much more vicious and personal than I ever remember them being.

I don't follow UK politics. Haven't needed to since 1776. I have a vague notion of this Johnson character and I know Corbyn was a lefty from the briefest of summaries I read about him. I don't know enough to comment about why I think the guy was elected. I think you are right about Trump. The state of the economy is the 800lb gorilla in the room that no one on the left wants to mention. It doesn't need to care about feelings. If people see Trump as the path to more wages, more demand for work, and more growth for their business it is a done deal.
Who made that man a gunner?

berth
Posts: 1982
Joined: Sat, 6. Nov 04, 16:22
x4

Re: 2020 US presidential election

Post by berth » Sat, 14. Dec 19, 15:00

Masterbagger wrote:
Sat, 14. Dec 19, 04:46
...I don't follow UK politics. Haven't needed to since 1776...
:lol:

CBJ
EGOSOFT
EGOSOFT
Posts: 51740
Joined: Tue, 29. Apr 03, 00:56
x4

Re: 2020 US presidential election

Post by CBJ » Wed, 18. Dec 19, 12:16

The idea that Boris got worse treatment than other candidates in the media is, frankly, laughable. Yes, he was called out for his more egregious lies and for being out of touch with ordinary people, neither of which are unreasonable given his behaviour. But similarly Corbyn was, equally reasonably, portrayed as intransigent and out of touch with what voters actually thought of his policies, and therefore what could actually get him elected.

What happens on Reddit, and in other corners of the internet where like-minded people gather and pat each other on the back for agreeing with one another, does not reflect what happens in the professional media.

Anyway, I'll let you get back to the real subject in hand. :)

Mightysword
Posts: 4350
Joined: Wed, 10. Mar 04, 05:11
x3tc

Re: 2020 US presidential election

Post by Mightysword » Wed, 18. Dec 19, 19:25

CBJ wrote:
Wed, 18. Dec 19, 12:16
The idea that Boris got worse treatment than other candidates in the media is, frankly, laughable. Yes, he was called out for his more egregious lies and for being out of touch with ordinary people, neither of which are unreasonable given his behaviour. But similarly Corbyn was, equally reasonably, portrayed as intransigent and out of touch with what voters actually thought of his policies, and therefore what could actually get him elected.
I read the BBC everyday without fail, and to me BJ got a lot more negative press around him than Corbyn, especially since he became the PM. I do aware that Corbyn does not have a positive impression, but it would be rather disingenuous to say he received the same treatment. Just to restate what I had stated before: I only used reddit an an example and it's by no mean my 'only' source. Not just the BBC, I do make my round around the British press that have an online publicfication: telegraph, dailymail, mirror, independent, guardian, even the Sun ...etc... I'll take your word for it, but I stand by what I perceive with my own eye. Unless of course, the printed version you guys get locally is much different than the one online.

If you have some suggestion of what outlets I should follow to keep a balance view, I'm all ears and promise will deligently follow your suggestion for a couple months and see if my perception will change. I always seek to be properly informed, but I must see it for myself.

Do note that however, if you think this is about "unfair" treatment by the media then that would be missing the point I'm trying to make. Even let's say the British Media is an example of virtue and there is no bias report or of equal bias, and Borish simply does a lot of thing that get deservedly reported on. The fact of the matter is that there is there are a lot of negativity surrounding him. Whether those negativities true or fake, whether what the reason for those reports is not the point I'm making, the point is how they all prove irrelevant at the end result. Just want to make it perfectly clear to avoid bodging on a technical debate of what is right and what is wrong.
Reading comprehension is hard.
Reading with prejudice makes comprehension harder.

User avatar
Chips
Posts: 4873
Joined: Fri, 19. Mar 04, 19:46
x4

Re: 2020 US presidential election

Post by Chips » Wed, 18. Dec 19, 23:07

Mightysword wrote:
Wed, 18. Dec 19, 19:25
Do note that however, if you think this is about "unfair" treatment by the media then that would be missing the point I'm trying to make. Even let's say the British Media is an example of virtue and there is no bias report or of equal bias, and Borish simply does a lot of thing that get deservedly reported on. The fact of the matter is that there is there are a lot of negativity surrounding him. Whether those negativities true or fake, whether what the reason for those reports is not the point I'm making, the point is how they all prove irrelevant at the end result. Just want to make it perfectly clear to avoid bodging on a technical debate of what is right and what is wrong.
Significant assumptions made on very limited (and subjective) experience though. There are things out there which point a bit more, erm, scientifically though (no idea of how they characterised positive/negative, nor as you say about whether news is based on policies or someone (for example) on the Labour shadow cabinet letting rip into their own leader believing it to be in confidence - which is definitely news, and obviously negative, and will be reported by all media outlets and therefore skewing things slightly :D ).

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 29161.html

Interestingly, both sides believed the BBC was biased in favour of their opposition:

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/p ... 48636.html

It was definitely possible to find an article listing which papers backed which side during the Theresa May's election campaign though, just not found one for the latest election yet. However, I doubt it differs much (the limited number of newspapers presented were overwhelmingly Tory - by circulation and by number of outlets).

Whether reporting has an impact is questionable? There are polls which show the impact at various points when certain things come to light. Am sure there's some form of research somewhere into it - and whether that's media influenced negative reporting of something that is neutral etc (i.e. actually influencing it with their biased editorial opinion) is likely hard to determine. However, undoubtedly the parties used to attempt to cosy up with various media outlets, so they believed it had an impact and worked hard to influence it... as do corporations and companies too (whether through engagement to correct "fake news" as it's referred to in another thread, or spread an alternative message such as investment in things to try and influence public opinion about them etc).

Mightysword
Posts: 4350
Joined: Wed, 10. Mar 04, 05:11
x3tc

Re: 2020 US presidential election

Post by Mightysword » Thu, 19. Dec 19, 19:27

Chips wrote:
Wed, 18. Dec 19, 23:07
Interestingly, both sides believed the BBC was biased in favor of their opposition:
In my opinion it's probably escapism, it's easier to blame external factors than admitting own failing. Again, using the BBC as an example, and looking at the time frame between when Borish become PM and the election, from the top of my head I can recall these things were reported on the BBC:

- Borish repeatly defeated in the common.
- The furlough of the parliament shenanigan before the queen speech.
- Other PMs calling him out on the use of languages in afraid how it may promote violence. Especially when he said they can honor a certain Stay MP who was murdered by ironically agree with leave. I remember the BBC ran an article with the daughter of said MP calling him out.
- The event where he had a bunch of police officer stand in as the backdrop for one of his address with one officer almost passed out at the end.
- Taking away the whip of disagreeing MPs - which was portraited as bullying that lead to outright rebellion with conservative MPs leaving the party. (The BBC covered with with fanfair the moment one MP switching his bench)
- And on the eve of the election, media outlet literally lit-up with the event of how Borish refused to look at the image of immigrant and took away the cellphone from the journalist showing it to him.

And that's just the number of issues, not number of articles since each issues got numerous article ran on them. The editorial/analysis section for each articles weren't exactly kind to Borish and conservative either. During this same period, the only thing that I can see remotely negative about Corbyn and labour is the argument during their convention about how Labor should take a stand on Brexit. While I may have missed some, but in term of volume and frequency, it's decisively amount to nothing comparing to the Conservative coverage.

And here is the reason I quote you on that: when the campaign started, it seems a lot of people think at the very least, Conservative is in a very shaky position. But as early surveys result started coming that showed a pretty comfy win for conservative, the denial and excuses start flying. Specifically, opposition took issue with how the BBC let Borish avoid facing a certain interviews while other leaders had to the same. I remember seeing rallying cry for Labor to come out vote and remember how bias the BBC is, accusation of the BBC is in the pocket of conservative. I was sitting here and thought "if that is true then UK media is in a good shape, 'cause in the US there is no way an outlet will be willing to run that many negative 'facts' on their benefactor.

Then the final result came in, in the face of the most controversial PM (avoiding using the word un-popular here since that doesn't seem to be the case), Labor is handed one of their worst defeat in history. I looked at that result and really wanted to ask: even if the BBC forced Borish to face the same interview that they were accusing to play favorite, do they seriously think it would have changed anything. The margin of defeat seems to indidcate the voters made their mind a long time ago, and all the noise in the media proved to be decisively irrelevant.
Whether reporting has an impact is questionable?
The issue can be, at least from my observation is candidate and political party can be blindsided by their own echo chamber. While I saw a lacking of negativity on Labor and Corbyn on the BBC during this period, there is another thing that was lacking: reason to pick Labor. When the narrative is so dominated about how un-popular their opponent is, I think it made Labor forgot how unpopular they themselves are. Something they only came to realization now ... a bit too late.

And this is exactly the same pattern that make me worry for the Democrat next year. It's almost scary how uncanny similar the politic in the UK and US in the last 4 years are.

- UK: vote to leave, everyone panic.
- US: hold my beer! -> proceed to elect Trump.
- UK: installed a Trump 3.0 (2.0 is Mecron) as their PM, have that PM lead his party to the most stunning victory in recent history.
- US: it doesn't happen yet, but most sign seem to indicate uncle Sam will not be outdone by his UK brother next year.

I had said a few time, politically in the last 4 years, there seem to be a competition to outshit each others between the UK and the US. Labor lost their tradition districts pretty much in the identical maner how Democrat lost their blue firewall in 2016. And Boris' campaign is almost a copy/pasta of Trump's strategy in 2016, while Labor's campaign mirrors that of the Democrat. The problem is this:

- Aside from the short period of soul searching right after the defeat (kinda like what Labor doing now), like how can Democrat retake key battleground, win back voter. That conservation disappeared very quickly after a few months.
- Rather, Democrat's energy and capital are dragged into a pit fight on how un-electible Trump is. Which so far, has been proven to be the 'losing' strategy.

In away the UK result is good for the Democrat, if they can pull their head out of their arse and get the message. The fact Biden is still the leading candidate gives me some hope, so far he's like the Tony Blair of Democrat while Sander/Warren is like Corbyn. I can only hope that debate in the primary next years they will actually argue about the policy of each others, and not simply just argue about Trump. :roll:
Reading comprehension is hard.
Reading with prejudice makes comprehension harder.

RegisterMe
Posts: 8903
Joined: Sun, 14. Oct 07, 17:47
x4

Re: 2020 US presidential election

Post by RegisterMe » Thu, 19. Dec 19, 19:46

Mightysword wrote:
Thu, 19. Dec 19, 19:27
- Borish repeatly defeated in the common.
- The furlough of the parliament shenanigan before the queen speech.
- Other PMs calling him out on the use of languages in afraid how it may promote violence. Especially when he said they can honor a certain Stay MP who was murdered by ironically agree with leave. I remember the BBC ran an article with the daughter of said MP calling him out.
- The event where he had a bunch of police officer stand in as the backdrop for one of his address with one officer almost passed out at the end.
- Taking away the whip of disagreeing MPs - which was portraited as bullying that lead to outright rebellion with conservative MPs leaving the party. (The BBC covered with with fanfair the moment one MP switching his bench)
- And on the eve of the election, media outlet literally lit-up with the event of how Borish refused to look at the image of immigrant and took away the cellphone from the journalist showing it to him.
Well, minor inaccuracies aside, those things did happen, and he was Prime Minister, his government did notionally run the country, and it's one of if not the most important periods of time in the country's history since the end of WWII. I think in the circumstances such scrutiny is warranted.

But there was also plenty of BBC coverage of Labour, the Lib Dems, and the SNP etc in the same time period. Actually, that's understating it. Given the multiple rebellions, defections, legitimate differences of opinion being explored, arguments, gaffs and publicly displayed dithering there was absolutely stacks of coverage on all sides.

Maybe you just missed it?
I can't breathe.

- George Floyd, 25th May 2020

Mightysword
Posts: 4350
Joined: Wed, 10. Mar 04, 05:11
x3tc

Re: 2020 US presidential election

Post by Mightysword » Thu, 19. Dec 19, 21:01

Again, the point is it's not about whether they get unfair coverage or media bias exist. And yes, I did come across the coverage of other parties but they are minuscule comparing to BJ and Conservative, even if one combine all the coverage of all other parties they still don't compare to the volume around BJ. Answer me honestly, who do you think the front and center of the headline almost daily for the months leading up to the election? And as state I am someone who read the BBC every days without fail. In fact I probably read the BBC more than the US media outlets (because right now there is very little value to them for someone who don't belong to one echo chamber or another).

Emphasize one more time: they are more scrutinized because they are the government party, or BJ get called out more simply people he did a lot of ****** thing that deserved to be called out for ..etc... that's the not the point, the point is how they seem to be irrelevant when it comes to how people decide to vote. At the very least, I don't think anyone can argue conservative going into the election glowing like the last beacon of hope or BJ was portrait-ed as the undisputed champion of justice (more like the opposite). I'm not talking about the bias of the coverage, but the (lack of) impact those coverage have on the result.

If anyone want to suggest there is a co-relation between press and vote result ... well then I have to say the co-relation is a negative one, not a positive one. But my opinion would be maybe there isn't one, or the correlation is not as strong as they are suggested to be. People want to use it as a convience excuse - people don't vote for me because they got tricked - rather admitting people don't vote for me because they don't like me.
Last edited by Mightysword on Thu, 19. Dec 19, 21:07, edited 1 time in total.
Reading comprehension is hard.
Reading with prejudice makes comprehension harder.

RegisterMe
Posts: 8903
Joined: Sun, 14. Oct 07, 17:47
x4

Re: 2020 US presidential election

Post by RegisterMe » Thu, 19. Dec 19, 21:05

In that case I misunderstood the point you were trying to make, and in large part I agree with you.
I can't breathe.

- George Floyd, 25th May 2020

Alan Phipps
Moderator (English)
Moderator (English)
Posts: 30368
Joined: Fri, 16. Apr 04, 19:21
x4

Re: 2020 US presidential election

Post by Alan Phipps » Thu, 19. Dec 19, 21:24

Well, I'm glad you can now agree on some things to do with the recent UK election. OK, so what do you want to say about the 2020 US presidential election? :D
A dog has a master; a cat has domestic staff.

User avatar
red assassin
Posts: 4613
Joined: Sun, 15. Feb 04, 15:11
x3

Re: 2020 US presidential election

Post by red assassin » Thu, 19. Dec 19, 23:58

I will say that I think you underestimate the extent to which the population of this country do not get their news from the BBC. Here's the newspaper front pages that went with specifically partisan headlines on election day:
https://inews.co.uk/news/media/general- ... it-1340033
A still more glorious dawn awaits, not a sunrise, but a galaxy rise, a morning filled with 400 billion suns - the rising of the Milky Way

RegisterMe
Posts: 8903
Joined: Sun, 14. Oct 07, 17:47
x4

Re: 2020 US presidential election

Post by RegisterMe » Fri, 20. Dec 19, 03:15

Alan Phipps wrote:
Thu, 19. Dec 19, 21:24
Well, I'm glad you can now agree on some things to do with the recent UK election. OK, so what do you want to say about the 2020 US presidential election? :D
Regardless of the result America will continue to chew its own throat out :(.
I can't breathe.

- George Floyd, 25th May 2020

Mightysword
Posts: 4350
Joined: Wed, 10. Mar 04, 05:11
x3tc

Re: 2020 US presidential election

Post by Mightysword » Fri, 20. Dec 19, 21:39

So about yesterday performance:

- Warren/Buttigieg: a millionaire who had taken money from other millionaire before now accusing the only-non-millionaire on the stage of accepting money from millionaire ... :gruebel:

- Sander: same old argument that the rich is our enemies, and all our problems are caused by millionaires and billionaires. I wish someone pointed it out for him (the same way Buttigieg did to Warren) that is he awared 5 out of 6 candidates there are millionaires ... and he's one of them? It's a good thing for me though, as long as he stick to that message I can rest in peace he'll be nowhere electable.

- Yan: best part for me is how he slammed Democrat's obsession - naturally because that something I often said myself. He also criticize the media for sucking the attention of the voters away from real issues (hint: it's not the impeachment).

- Biden: showed me why he's still my favorite, especially when he emphasize the need to work with Republican. While it's something everyone can say, Biden has the credential to back it up. He's one of the deal maker for both the time he was at Senate and Vice President. During Obama tenure when a deal seem unlikely at the 11th hour, it's him who took trips to congress and get it done. For me he's one of the last bastion from the generation of John McCain (Republican) and Ted Kennedy (Democrat), who neither anyone from the left or the right can dispute were champions of their respective ideology, yet that didn't deny them the ability to reach across the isle and working with their opponent. It's two great qualities that the new generations somehow believe are mutual exclusive. But then in the past it's not the norm to go around and demonize your opponents either :shock:


That doesn't mean I liked everything he said though:

- Biden and Buttigieg claimed "The American people doesn't like the economy" and "it doesn't work for MOST of us". I think the missed the survey last month showing majority are positive about the economy. So their claim are either: out of touch, or condescending (tell people the should not feel good when they do), or lying.

- It's similar to when Warren claimed she hasn't talked to a single person who are happy about their insurance, which makes me wonder WHO are the one she has been talking to. Because Most Americans Still Rate Their Healthcare Quite Positively. So again, ignorant if she made the comment unaware of the fact, otherwise ... can this be considered fake news?

And here is why I said people maybe blindsided by their own echo chambers. I don't know if the campaign staffs provides these candidates with real and objective data for their debate or not, because their comment are certainly inline with the "dominating narrative" on these issue, regardless of the fact. In both cases above they could have easily just acknowledge the current positive while mentioning there are still people left behind, and promise to make things even better instead of being untruthfully dismissive about it. To echo what Obama warned these candidates last months: most people are simply looking for someone who can make their life better, not a promise to burn the whole system to ash and replace.

The last things strike out for me is political correctness:

- In the immediate aftermath of the 2016 I witness two of my colleagues had a go at each others. The male (voted Hilary) questioned the female (didn't vote Hilary) "I don't understand why you are a woman and didn't vote for Hilary" ... the female was furious and didn't dignify that question with a response (just told him to zip it and their discussion is over). Also note that in some area Clinton lost the woman vote to Trump, and in general everyone agree she didn't get as many women vote and people think she would. One of the analysis was because Clinton - being potentially the first female president - took it for granted, and her message didn't really go beyond "hey I'm a woman, you are a woman, vote for me and we can make history!". In fact, I know why a few women took offense with that stand.

- Reason I brought those up because I feel Warren and Klobuchar kinda forget that lesson here. I'm sure pretty much everyone looking at the stage know they are women, repeatively pushing that obvious fact by themselves I don't think will help their image, rather it may even damage it like it did with Clinton. They should remember that ultimately the voters will vote to pick someone who they think qualified to be a president, and if it happen to be the first woman, then it's a bonus point. Most people will be too pragmatic to vote for woman candidate simply for the shake of making history.

- Yan said a lot right thing last night, but he made one bad joke (if it is a joke): "The fact is ... if you get too many men alone and leave us alone for a while, we kind of become morons." I think there is a similar saying about putting enough women together and you'll get a market or get nothing done, version varied depend on the culture. And people will say that's a stereotype, and that is wrong. And when we believe stereotype is wrong, then it should be the same for every stereotype. A lot of people cringed hard when Obama said women are 'indisputably better' at leading than men, and it wasn't just the men who did the cringing. :sceptic:
Reading comprehension is hard.
Reading with prejudice makes comprehension harder.

User avatar
Observe
Posts: 5079
Joined: Fri, 30. Dec 05, 17:47
xr

Re: 2020 US presidential election

Post by Observe » Fri, 20. Dec 19, 22:17

I'm still for Andrew Yang in spite of the fact that it seems he has too far to climb to make the final cut.
  • Biden may understand the problems of yesteryear, but I don't think he has a good grip on the challenges of tomorrow. Ideally, any leader we have, will be able to connect the dots between past, present and future. For example, the coming fourth industrial revolution, automation, AI, climate change and a data driven economy present challenges that the 'old ways' may not be well suited to deal with.
  • Buttigieg caught my attention early on, but my interest in him has waned to the point that I now have a certain dislike for him. I feel he has hidden agendas that he is not being honest about. Just a feeling.
  • Warren might be OK as long as I have a volume control available whenever she speaks.
  • Sanders is impressive in many ways, but for some reason he doesn't quite float my boat. I would vote for him though.
  • Klobuchar would probably make a good President. She may be my second preference after Yang.
  • The billionaire guy what's his name doesn't sound bad, but he doesn't push my attention button.
So in summary, I would prefer Yang, Klobuchar, Sanders or Warren - depending on who the nominee turns out to be.

User avatar
fiksal
Posts: 16569
Joined: Tue, 2. May 06, 17:05
x4

Re: 2020 US presidential election

Post by fiksal » Mon, 23. Dec 19, 16:46

I want to see Sanders have a go at the presidency. It seems to me he is the one who will actually go the distance with what he says.
Gimli wrote:Let the Orcs come as thick as summer-moths round a candle!

User avatar
Observe
Posts: 5079
Joined: Fri, 30. Dec 05, 17:47
xr

Re: 2020 US presidential election

Post by Observe » Tue, 24. Dec 19, 03:42

fiksal wrote:
Mon, 23. Dec 19, 16:46
I want to see Sanders have a go at the presidency. It seems to me he is the one who will actually go the distance with what he says.
Being realistic, I tend to agree. Yang is very unlikely to be the nominee. Sanders has the experience and has more or less stayed on course for the entirety of his political life. I would vote for him without reservation.

Mightysword
Posts: 4350
Joined: Wed, 10. Mar 04, 05:11
x3tc

Re: 2020 US presidential election

Post by Mightysword » Tue, 24. Dec 19, 18:19

I don't think Sander is a realist though.

Sure, talking about long term, the world he promised sound nice and it's one I would love to see. Assuming no candidate are lying about for their own gain (which is a big assumption), I do think all candidate aims for that same world. But here is the thing:

- Biden: do I think he can take us us to see that world at the end of his term? No. But I do believe he can take us a few steps closer to it. And if the cycle is repeated a few more times with minimum step back, maybe one day we reach the goal.
- Sander: he will probably try to deliver that result faster yes. But in the end, it will be just that, 'his effort'. At the end of his term we would be no where nearer to the goal, someone like him can talk about the dream, and that's all there is to it.

For once, Sander approach leaves very little room to maneuver. He doesn't have charisma, his "everything is your fault" approach, he doesn't seem to know how to build coalition. He will become even a bigger lame duck than Obama.

Which lead to the second - the Obama lesson: if I gonna consider what is the one and only achievement of Obama in term of social equality, it's Obama care. And ... that's it, nothing else, because he couldn't do anything else no matter how much he wants to. Obama and Democrat essentially burnt all of their political capital for it and left with nothing to continue:

- These days people tend to point at how Trump lost the Congress during midterm election as a sight of American's rebuke of Trump. I see that simply as convenience truth by the left because they didn't want to mention two important context. One is pretty much every modern president lost seat in congress in the midterm (with the exception of Bush due to the effect of 9/11). Second, Trump actually lost less seats than Obama did during his first midterm. So if anyone wants to characterize Trump lost as voters' rebuke, they should reminded themselves that good guy Obama was even stronger rebuked.

- And that wasn't the only thing. It was a rally cry for a conservative revival "in the face of a threat from the left". The tea party was born as an example, racial tension pretty much deteriorate during his reign and Obama was powerless to do anything about it, even if in his heart he really wanted to. So for this 2 years of momentary shift to hard left, this country had to pay paid ten fold with the social backflash in the year after. In fact you can say we're still paying it now with Trump at the helm, remember one of the biggest rallying cry for Republican in 2016 was "not another 4 year of Obama". So if anyone think Sander can successfully does even 1/5 of the things he promised, the way he gonna do it make me shudder at how big the backflash gonna be.

And third, that is assuming he can stand up to Trump to begin with. Again learning from the recent UK election, if Sander are to become the primary candidate, then US2020 gonna be the spitting image of UK 2019. You looked at Corbyn's manifesto and it's almost a carbon copy to what Sander said in term of ideology. You look at it and wonder "who wouldn't want to live in a world like this?". But like I said, voters for the most part are pragmatic people, they don't just look at the promise but also the question "how the heck you gonna carry them out". And like I said Sander being a very divisive figure himself, would pick an answer that will piss half of the country off. Doesn't matter what you think about that other half, you need to work with them to have any real progress done.
Reading comprehension is hard.
Reading with prejudice makes comprehension harder.

User avatar
Observe
Posts: 5079
Joined: Fri, 30. Dec 05, 17:47
xr

Re: 2020 US presidential election

Post by Observe » Tue, 24. Dec 19, 18:38

Andrew Yang Overtakes Pete Buttigieg to Become Fourth Most Favored Primary Candidate.

Yang is still a long-shot, but these days everything is anyone's guess.

Post Reply

Return to “Off Topic English”