US. The Road Ahead. - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

All general discussion about politics that doesn't belong in any of the other forums.

Moderator: PoFo Political Circus Mods

By Torus34
#15132323
November 3rd, 2020. One way or another the question of who shall move into the White House January 20th, 2021 will be settled by today's votes and the counting which follows. It will not mean that the large percent of Americans who are pro-President of the United States of America Donald Trump will fold their tents and quietly fade away. As I've noted from time to time, these people, with origins in the Tea Party group, see President Trump as a symbol -- a banner -- which represents their angst. Should President Trump win, they will continue to follow him.

But should President Trump lose, his followers will not join hands with the Democrats for a rousing chorus of Kumbaya. They will either continue to follow President Trump and look for him or perhaps someone he anoints as his heir to run in 2024. Alternately, they may seek a new standard bearer in someone who will stroke their concerns and fears, perhaps stoking the fires which engender them.

Either way, the United States will not return to some mythical period when everything was, to quote Borat, 'very nice'. I do not see the Republican Party resolving the intraparty split between the far rightists and those few remaining moderates presently warming the back benches.

Nor will the demographic changes under way in the country alter course. Those changes may determine the majority of voters who will, eventually, assume the reins of power and guide the United States into a future as yet unknown.

The road ahead is foggy and our maps are out of date.

Regards, stay safe 'n well. Remember the Big 3: masks, hand washing and physical distancing.
User avatar
By ckaihatsu
#15133247

Texas Congressman and former Navy SEAL Dan Crenshaw quote tweeted, “The false promise of the left, in 1 minute. Start out with a well-intentioned point on equality of opportunity, only to end it with the true Marxist intent: equity in outcomes. They leave out the part where equity must be enforced with unequal -and tyrannical- treatment”



https://nypost.com/2020/11/02/harris-eq ... ism-pitch/



The establishment political discourse has been framing the left-right dichotomy, within the context of the presidential elections, as being the theoretical [1] equality-of-opportunity (bourgeois legal norm of 'equality before the law'), versus [2] equity-in-outcomes (everyone winds up as social clones no matter what individual decisions they make).

'Equity-in-outcomes' is meant, of course, as a red-baiting *smear*, to suggest the lapsed, Cold-War-era 'totalitarianism over lifestyles' characterization of Stalinism.

A *better* term for consideration here in 2020 would be 'equality-in-resources', meaning that wherever the provision of *infrastructure* and *resources* would be the determining *difference* in someone's life, the larger society / government should be providing sufficient *resources*, so that the remaining, determining difference *isn't* a material one (of lack thereof), but rather boils down to one's own individual *self-determination*, which is what the point is supposed to *be*, in the direction of intelligence, social organization, innovation, efficiency, etc.


Components of Social Production

Spoiler: show
Image
#15134798
In terms of international relations there are for key areas which Biden will be different to Trump.

Trade - Biden is more likely to be open to free trade and to sign up to trade deals such as the TPP, something which the UK is also examining in relation to future trade deals.

Defence and Security- Biden is more pro-NATO however it is likely he will still demand a 2% minimum GDP defence commitment by member nations.

Environment - Biden is likely to sign back up to the Paris Accord and to commit to more environmentally friendly policies.

International Cooperation - Biden will place more emphasis on international relations and allies, as opposed to America First.

In terms of Domestic policies, they are for the US to decide upon and given that I am not American, these are not issues that concern me directly.

As for Brexit, I don't think Biden's election will make any difference, indeed he won't even be sworn in until after the transition period is over, and a US trade deal is not vital for the UK, indeed a way of getting around it might be both nations joining the TPP.
By Torus34
#15134805
When the dust settles and the new president and congress are sworn in, a major concern will be the degree of cooperation with the Democrats available to the Republican federal legislators. If they feel severely constrained by the pro-Trump voting bloc, the next two years will see little change in matters domestic. Gridlock will be the order of the day.

If, on the other hand, the pro-Trump bloc shows signs of accepting the longstanding rule of thumb, 'Go along to get along,' as opposed to attempting to limit Mr. Biden's presidency to one term, there may be some legislation passed of actual significance to the multi-faceted conglomeration that is American society.

Time, as it's said, will tell.

Regards, stay safe 'n well. Remember the prophylactic Big 3: masks, hand washing and physical distancing.

Reminder. I try to respond to all who quote my posts. If you do not get a response from me, it may be that you've made it onto my 'Ignore' list.
User avatar
By Panther
#15134893
We've had so little time to digest what happened during the Obama Administration.

We've had even less time to digest what happened during the Trump Administration.

We need to learn from our mistakes to move forward.
#15134899
Brave New World wrote:In terms of international relations there are for key areas which Biden will be different to Trump.

Trade - Biden is more likely to be open to free trade and to sign up to trade deals such as the TPP, something which the UK is also examining in relation to future trade deals.

Defence and Security- Biden is more pro-NATO however it is likely he will still demand a 2% minimum GDP defence commitment by member nations.

Environment - Biden is likely to sign back up to the Paris Accord and to commit to more environmentally friendly policies.

International Cooperation - Biden will place more emphasis on international relations and allies, as opposed to America First.

Biden will ship more jobs overseas to enrich corporations while US wages keep stagnating, will continue letting NATO countries spend under 2%, will sign up to the Paris Accord to virtue signal while there's no way he or the US will live up to the agreement, and will let China walk all over the US in trade.

You also forgot bombing the middle east for oil as well as middle east regime change like Obama/Biden tried in Libya and Syria.

Somehow Biden is some kind of saviour? Trump needed to be removed but the alternative isn't roses.
#15134906
Unthinking Majority wrote:Biden will ship more jobs overseas to enrich corporations while US wages keep stagnating, will continue letting NATO countries spend under 2%, will sign up to the Paris Accord to virtue signal while there's no way he or the US will live up to the agreement, and will let China walk all over the US in trade.

You also forgot bombing the middle east for oil as well as middle east regime change like Obama/Biden tried in Libya and Syria.

Somehow Biden is some kind of saviour? Trump needed to be removed but the alternative isn't roses.

Your interpretation of this election and of Biden is pessimistic but not inaccurate. The pre-Trump status quo wasn't some utopia that some of the establishment morons think it is.
#15134911
Random American wrote:Your interpretation of this election and of Biden is pessimistic but not inaccurate.

Not accurate? Biden was already in the White House as VP for 8 years, you really think he's going to govern any differently? Biden will be 78 years old when he's inaugurated, he brings no new ideas besides some virtue signalling in order to appease the PC police. He has a black woman as his VP but what is he actually going to do to help black people? What did Obama do?

Obama/Biden got some needed healthcare reforms, kudos for that, but they didn't do much else, and Dems won't even have control of the Senate.
#15134913
Right now, it's important to focus on the political battles for control of the Senate so that democrats will better be able to pass meaningful and needed legislation. The two seats that democrats need to win are the run-off elections in the state of Georgia on January 5, 2021. I will be voting for democrats Warnock and Ossoff in that Senate run off election given I live in the state of Georgia. Democrats shouldn't relax and need to keep working very hard and not under-estimating the republicans in Georgia. They'll certainly turn out to vote and those voters will present a formidable challenge for the election chances for democrats on those two Senate seats here in Georgia.

We can lose those two seats and if we do, you can be guaranteed Mitch McConnell will ruthlessly use his republican majority to squelch any legislation that democrats want to get passed into law. So, for democrats, this not a time for leaning on a victory or relaxing or taking a break. This is a time for hard work even if we are tired and continue to press forward. We can still lose those two crucial Senate seats and we shouldn't under-estimate the republicans. They will show up and vote. This isn't over with. It ain't over till it's over.
#15134918
Unthinking Majority wrote:Not accurate? Biden was already in the White House as VP for 8 years, you really think he's going to govern any differently? Biden will be 78 years old when he's inaugurated, he brings no new ideas besides some virtue signalling in order to appease the PC police. He has a black woman as his VP but what is he actually going to do to help black people? What did Obama do?

Obama/Biden got some needed healthcare reforms, kudos for that, but they didn't do much else, and Dems won't even have control of the Senate.

I said not Inaccurate!
User avatar
By ckaihatsu
#15134919
Brave New World wrote:
[Biden] will still demand a 2% minimum GDP defence commitment by member nations.



Military Keynesianism.


MistyTiger wrote:
And even in a lame duck period, Trump could still do damage. I think he should be pushed out of the White House next week or the week after. I was reading an article about how he could still do damage to this country until Biden formally takes over.

https://qz.com/1928887/the-damage-trump ... president/



How about *now*:


Impeachment of Donald Trump

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachme ... nald_Trump
#15135064
Unthinking Majority wrote:Biden will ship more jobs overseas to enrich corporations while US wages keep stagnating, will continue letting NATO countries spend under 2%, will sign up to the Paris Accord to virtue signal while there's no way he or the US will live up to the agreement, and will let China walk all over the US in trade.

You also forgot bombing the middle east for oil as well as middle east regime change like Obama/Biden tried in Libya and Syria.

Somehow Biden is some kind of saviour? Trump needed to be removed but the alternative isn't roses.


Biden is a career politician, so expect things to go back to normal, indeed many of his policies will be traditional American policies and this is especially true in terms of foreign policy.

I don't think Biden would have been elected had he been up against a different candidate, however the same is true of Trump in 2016 he would never have been elected had Hillary Clinton not been so unpopular.
User avatar
By ckaihatsu
#15135153
Brave New World wrote:
@ckaihatsu,

As per agreed in the NATO Summit in Wales in 2014.



BNW, I *don't care* what kind of political groupthink the international bourgeoisie has going on at the moment -- I was specifying the *economic function* of that NATO pact provision, which is *military Keynesianism*:



Military Keynesianism is an economic policy based on the position that government should raise military spending to boost economic growth. It is a fiscal stimulus policy as advocated by Keynes. But where Keynes advocated increasing public spending on socially useful items (infrastructure in particular), additional public spending is allocated to the arms industry, the area of defense being that over which the executive exercises greater discretionary power. Typical examples of such policies are National Socialist Germany, or the United States during and after World War II, during the presidencies of Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry S. Truman. This type of economy is linked to the interdependence between welfare and warfare states, in which the latter feeds the former, in a potentially unlimited spiral. The term is often used pejoratively to refer to politicians who apparently reject Keynesian economics, but use Keynesian arguments in support of excessive military spending.[1][2][3]



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_Keynesianism
User avatar
By ckaihatsu
#15135245
I'd also like to add that *military* spending is *non-productive*, because industrial production for weaponry (and warfare) doesn't produce any *commodities* (okay, except for international arms sales, which is why it's so lucrative for the government).

If a country's own weaponry *isn't* used then it's just stored away someplace, and rusting, without circulating in the economy.

If weaponry *is* used then it causes *destruction*, which *also* isn't economic activity, though, perversely, it *does* assist the capitalist dynamic of 'artificial scarcity', meaning that destruction of infrastructure and resources causes *new markets*, artificially, since it all then has to be *rebuilt*.

(The markets favor *scarce* items -- aged wine, unique art, rare animal specimens, etc. -- with higher valuations, than *common* items, so capitalism actually favors *destruction*, for new markets and higher valuations.)
User avatar
By ckaihatsu
#15135246
MistyTiger wrote:
@ckaihatsu Dems tried to impeach him but failed. Pelosi does not want to try again. I cannot say that I blame her.



Simple basic tar-and-feathering, then?


= D

Them is healthy fats, not trans fats etc Right,[…]

Job creation is wealth creation. It's a collabor[…]

This is a slippery slope fallacy: https://yourlo[…]

The fundamental problem in Western democracies […]