USA elections 2020 - 2021

[Infidel144]

"The crowd swelled to about 100 as the march started. One small group of demonstrators set fire to pro-police flags and a Trump campaign banner. Others sang chants against Trump, Biden and the Denver Police Department as they marched down Colfax Avenue carrying a banner that read, “Death to fascism and the liberalism that enables it” and chanting, “the cops and the Klan go hand-in-hand.”

"The mood and actions of demonstrators and police changed as the march moved toward the District 6 police station in downtown Denver. At least one protestor threw a firework at the station, which prompted officers to respond with what appeared to be tear gas and pepper-spray projectiles."

"Eight people were arrested on complaints of criminal mischief, assault and weapons violations, said Denver police spokesperson Doug Schepman. Officers recovered a handgun, knife, hammer and bear spray, and took reports of graffiti, property damage and a fire in an overturned dumpster, he said. Schepman said officers used “pepperballs and mace during the protest.”

The protest was promoted by the Colorado Springs Anti-Fascists’ Twitter account. Another group, Northern Colorado Community Mutual Aid and Defense, promoted a crowd-sourced bail fund to free two protesters it said police arrested Wednesday."
https://denverite.com/2020/11/04/dem...ins-undecided/

[priam11]

There's no "instead" though. Sorry you're not a fan of fighting ISIS, al Queda and the Taliban.....? How would you have fought those enemies "diplomatically?" The WHO helped China cover up their role in causing the pandemic. If you don't support withdrawal, what would be your response to punish the WHO for their behavior from within? The Paris Climate Accords have no binding enforcement mechanism. What value do you place in it, and how does the US' participation or non-participation affect our ability to reduce our carbon footprint, etc? The US is left relying on the Saudis as a frenemy partner in the Gulf ever since an Islamist coup in Iran that deprived us of our former key ally in the region. How would you "diplomatically" reject both Iran and Saudi while maintaining US leadership without any real regional partners left apart from Israel? Diplomacy is great - if you can enforce it - aka "endless conflicts since 1945."

Many on both sides of the aisle like to claim they support US leadership, but then reject the hard work of leading. Meanwhile, Americans are happier with the US' position in the world than at any point since 2003:


I'm not, but I also understand that diplomacy means nothing without credible strength to back it up. You can't have your cake and eat it too. America can afford to speak softly and project soft power precisely because she has a very big stick for all to see. This is something the US diplomatic corps understands:

Democrat poll respondents now claim to support US world leadership at historic numbers, a 20 point surge compared to 2010. Most people do. Yet, there seems to be a disconnect when it comes to the military, with those on the left showing the biggest gap:



People can like the general idea of US leadership all they want, but unless they are willing to accept the necessity of the credible threat of force, the international cooperation Democrats favor in huge numbers amounts to rhetoric.

I honestly don't know why you felt it necessary to go down this road.

I was responding to your comment about the left wanting a diminished presence on the world stage. Which in itself is kind of a vague statement and lacks nuance. The left wants more of a diplomatic option than a military one in world affairs, which your last graphic supports that trend.

I was specifically referring to Trump running on a less interventionist platform in 2016 in where he stated that the US has got involved in too many costly wars which he promised to change if he got elected. This was part of his America First policy, which, in typical Trumpian fashion, he failed to deliver. Not whether it was wiser to continue to support the Saudi government as a replacement to the Shah of Iran of the 1970s or whether is made sense to concede to China's influence in the WHO by taking the US' ball and going home.

And your assessment of the first graphic is bit inaccurate. All this shows is that satisfaction of the US position in world affairs is a partisan one. Americans are not happier overall in 2020 unless you exclude Democrats.

[Lord Thesaurian]

I honestly don't know why you felt it necessary to go down this road.

I was responding to your comment about the left wanting a diminished presence on the world stage. Which in itself is kind of a vague statement and lacks nuance. The left wants more of a diplomatic option than a military one in world affairs, which your last graphic supports that trend.

I was specifically referring to Trump running on a less interventionist platform in 2016 in where he stated that the US has got involved in too many costly wars which he promised to change if he got elected. This was part of his America First policy, which, in typical Trumpian fashion, he failed to deliver.

So....you agree with the substance quote you responded to, but your problem with it is that Trump failed to deliver on his platform concerning goals you share....? Illustrates my point I guess.

[Trump represents] A diminished presence on the world stage (which the left has been pushing for since the end of the Cold War)

Not whether it was wiser to continue to support the Saudi government as a replacement to the Shah of Iran of the 1970s or whether is made sense to concede to China's influence in the WHO by taking the US' ball and going home.

So...not the things you mentioned. Cool.

And your assessment of the first graphic is bit inaccurate. All this shows is that satisfaction of the US position in world affairs is a partisan one. Americans are not happier overall in 2020 unless you exclude Democrats.

It’s based on US adults. If you don’t trust the graph you can check the article.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/286742/...hest-2003.aspx

[Cope]

I honestly don't know why you felt it necessary to go down this road.

I was responding to your comment about the left wanting a diminished presence on the world stage. Which in itself is kind of a vague statement and lacks nuance. The left wants more of a diplomatic option than a military one in world affairs, which your last graphic supports that trend.

I was specifically referring to Trump running on a less interventionist platform in 2016 in where he stated that the US has got involved in too many costly wars which he promised to change if he got elected. This was part of his America First policy, which, in typical Trumpian fashion, he failed to deliver. Not whether it was wiser to continue to support the Saudi government as a replacement to the Shah of Iran of the 1970s or whether is made sense to concede to China's influence in the WHO by taking the US' ball and going home.

And your assessment of the first graphic is bit inaccurate. All this shows is that satisfaction of the US position in world affairs is a partisan one. Americans are not happier overall in 2020 unless you exclude Democrats.

If we're talking strictly about the left, rather than the Democratic Party, it is worth noting that they want dramatic shifts in U.S. foreign policy which go far beyond demilitarization. That said, and as was mentioned, America's diplomatic influence is largely a product of its military infrastructure and capabilities; the task of managing the Chinese, Iranians, Russians, North Koreans and Islamists will become markedly more difficult if that infrastructure is dismantled.

As far as Trump presidency is concerned, it is undeniable that it was/is "less interventionist" than prior administrations. That much is evidenced by the fact that the US has not initiated any new conflicts since 2016. Biden, on the other hand, facilitated American interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan in the early 00's before taking part in an administration which not only exacerbated these conflicts (despite promising to end them), but was responsible for the disastrous intervention in Libya. And that's before we get to the abysmal record on Syria, Crimea, and the Donbass, all regions in which the US became involved in never ending proxy wars during the Obama years.

[z3n]

Remember to abide by the ToS, personal insults will not be tolerated.

[alhoon]

You're going to have to get used to the idea of razor thin margins in various battle grounds if you want to watch and eat popcorn. It's not a new concept. Winning the presidency by 20k in a state but some local election will be down to the wire of a few hundred. Not new. Why does it not get contested more? Because three states are tipping the electoral college over 270 instead of just one vis a vis Florida circa 2000.

That still makes him a weak condidate Gaidin.

[Gaidin]

That still makes him a weak condidate Gaidin.

The last 12 elections all have states down to razor thin margins. By your standard we can’t seem to pull a strong candidate from your own ass. Show us how it’s done.

[Morifea]

@alhoon: a weak candidate that got an immense amount of votes and carried some deep republican states. No my definition of weak.

@coughdrop: First he will milk the nation for every Dollar he can.

[PointOfViewGun]

This nice infographic shows how states voted since 1976:



Helps to put things in perspective.

[Cyclops]

...

I'm reminded of all the righties who DEFINITELY didn't push for the Iraq War, TOTALLY didn't cheer when they heard the invasion announced, and CERTAINLY never called anyone who opposed the war a traitor and terrorist sympathizer.
...

Um I think a majority of Dems voted for the war in the senate, and plenty of reps too. I have a vague memory that only 1 rep voted against the PATRIOT Act too. I mean if you like your politics as simplistic as a Disney cartoon fair enough, I prefer it at least as subtle a Warner Bros myself.

...For the reality-based community I'd like to hear your thoughts on the future of the Trump cult. Will the Trump cult fade away like the Tea Party or will they support Trump financially in the manner he and his family have become accustomed?
.

I don't know who these "Trump faction" people are. The "Blue Wall" is back and Trump otherwise retained mostly log standing Red states, so the idea there's a huge ultra loyal Trump Middle America does not seem supported by the demographics. His "base" seems to be composed of the Koch funded Tea party mob, the well disciplined Pentecostals and the KKK. I don't think the 4chan crowd ever leave their mother's basements so lets not include them as voters.

I think the moment he's spent he will be cut loose by his billionaire backers.

...

My money is on Trump fleecing them for the rest of his life.

My money is on him being discarded like used toilet paper. He was a convenient attention magnet for an Oil-God alliance, the same mob that was steering Bush I and II.

[Infidel144]

So you really didn't praise the people rushing into the MI Capital Building to point guns at legislators with the implicit threat of deadly violence if they didn't vote how the thought they should,

Your claim was that I "brush[ed] off armed thugs invading state capitals and plotting to kidnap and murder governors as no big deal."
Now, I don't recall "armed thugs invading state capitals". I do recall citizens exercising their rights under the Constitution (and MI law) to peaceably assemble and petition for redress of grievances and to bear arms. As I recall they did not engage in any violence, rioting etc. I also don't recall them pointing guns at legislators, which would probably be brandishing in a threatening manner, which is, as I recall, not permitted under state law and would have likely caused arrests, which did not happen. You know, an actual peaceful protest. I'm not sure I 'praised' them, though I did defend their lawful right to do so.

and you didn't vote for the man you have spent the last five years here defending and praising?

The man that I've said here is lying trash with no principles? I tend not to vote for people I consider lying trash with no principles...
That won't necessarily prevent me from agreeing with things he does that I am in favor of.

[Muizer]

My money is on him being discarded like used toilet paper. He was a convenient attention magnet for an Oil-God alliance, the same mob that was steering Bush I and II.

The future is always uncertain, so you may be right. Still, I don't think one can possibly say Trumpism has not delivered for the Republican establishment, nor have these elections shown it has lost any appeal. On the contrary. Perhaps the only down-side is it's proven to galvanize the Democrats as well, but how long lived will that be? If Trump can find an alternative platform to reach the nation, he could continue to set the tone for Republican politics. If he wants to and stays in good health, he could be back in 4 years. But who wants to place bets on what Mr Trump is going to do tomorrow, let alone 4 years from now...

[Sir Adrian]

Trump was an instrument. Now that it is no longer usefull they will find another. Trump is done with politics. He'll probably get a lucrative tv show somewhere, where he can use all that best cognition he has, and that will be that.

[antaeus]

Trump was an instrument. Now that it is no longer usefull they will find another. Trump is done with politics. He'll probably get a lucrative tv show somewhere, where he can use all that best cognition he has, and that will be that.

He has a few children and children in-law who will all be eyeing a populist dynasty. I don't think the GOP is finished with the Trump family yet.

[priam11]

If we're talking strictly about the left, rather than the Democratic Party, it is worth noting that they want dramatic shifts in U.S. foreign policy which go far beyond demilitarization. That said, and as was mentioned, America's diplomatic influence is largely a product of its military infrastructure and capabilities; the task of managing the Chinese, Iranians, Russians, North Koreans and Islamists will become markedly more difficult if that infrastructure is dismantled.

As far as Trump presidency is concerned, it is undeniable that it was/is "less interventionist" than prior administrations. That much is evidenced by the fact that the US has not initiated any new conflicts since 2016. Biden, on the other hand, facilitated American interventions in Iraq and Afghanistan in the early 00's before taking part in an administration which not only exacerbated these conflicts (despite promising to end them), but was responsible for the disastrous intervention in Libya. And that's before we get to the abysmal record on Syria, Crimea, and the Donbass, all regions in which the US became involved in never ending proxy wars during the Obama years.

But Cope, I am completely aware of the necessity of maintaining an military infrastructure to manage the above but I do question if that can be done at the same efficiency for a lot less. Trump has increase spending in every year in office (and the Dems gave this to him every time) but can we actually say that it was essential to do that over the Obama years of defense spending (except 2016) in order to meet these geopolitical goals?

And by not initiating any new wars is kinda setting the bar really low. Although he tried really hard with Iran and who knows how this year would have turned out if it wasn't for Covid. And getting John Bolton as his National Security was not going to help his case. So sure he didn't technically start any new ones but he never had meaningful disengagement any of the existing ones as well or lowered the involvement significantly. Instead he increased Obama's drone strike programme and made it more secretive so I would not paint that as less interventionalist light. Sure there were slight troop withdraws but that had been an ongoing trend since 2010 but he really just kept the status quo. But if that is the gauge we are going for then sure.

And yes Biden should not ever get a pass on this.

[Infidel144]

I have a vague memory that only 1 rep voted against the PATRIOT Act too. I mean if you like your politics as simplistic as a Disney cartoon fair enough, I prefer it at least as subtle a Warner Bros myself.

I seem to recall Democrats complaining about being forced to withdraw a reauthorization of the PATRIOT Act when Trump threatened to veto it.

[Muizer]

Trump was an instrument. Now that it is no longer usefull they will find another. Trump is done with politics. He'll probably get a lucrative tv show somewhere, where he can use all that best cognition he has, and that will be that.

If he ever was anybody's instrument, they got more than they bargained for. Trump has successfully turned a large share of the Republican voter base into followers of his personality cult. If he chooses to remain active in politics/media, his endorsement will remain a make or break factor for Republican careers for years to come. The 'breaking' being a very realistic option, knowing he will have no compunction whatever about putting his own interests ahead of the party's.

[Lord Thesaurian]

I warmly welcome the election of Joe Biden as the next President of the United States. I know Mr. Biden as a strong supporter of NATO and the transatlantic relationship.

US leadership is as important as ever in an unpredictable world, and I look forward to working very closely with President-elect Biden, Vice President-elect Kamala Harris and the new administration to further strengthen the bond between North America and Europe.

A strong NATO is good for North America and good for Europe. Together, NATO Allies represent almost one billion people, half of the world’s economic might and half of the world’s military might. We need this collective strength to deal with the many challenges we face, including a more assertive Russia, international terrorism, cyber and missile threats, and a shift in the global balance of power with the rise of China. We can only be secure and successful if we face these challenges together.
https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/n...ectedLocale=en

100% agree with his sentiment. Good to see a vote of confidence from our European friends. Let’s hope the confidence in Biden isn’t misplaced.

[Gaidin]

He has a few children and children in-law who will all be eyeing a populist dynasty. I don't think the GOP is finished with the Trump family yet.

You overestimate their charisma.

I have my doubts people like them are willing to move to a place to get a House seat for the kind of people that would vote for them.

[Lord Thesaurian]

You overestimate their charisma.

I have my doubts people like them are willing to move to a place to get a House seat for the kind of people that would vote for them.

Yeah if the Trump family is going anywhere in politics, it’s to get contributor gigs on Fox and OAN. When you’re accustomed to the upper east side, DC is a downgrade. More than power, those kind of people like money.