aurum

Such as? Every major world power has engaged in imperialism, colonialism, exploitation etc. The US is unprecedented in terms of the global power it has achieved, with a significant amount of that due to its unique geographical advantages and embracing of liberalism. So of course its potential for abuse is much higher. We will not be able to find historical examples of world powers acting exactly the same. The world has evolved. My point is that there is a kind "Evil-American exceptionalism" argument that is being made in this thread. And it's an untenable position. If you want to call American foreign policy evil, fine. But don't create this story that America is somehow special in its evilness. If anything, America as a whole is relatively uncorrupt compared to most countries. And that's partially why it has been so successful and has the power it does.

It's unique only in form, not in kind. It's not an east vs west debate per se, it's about who has power and who doesn't. Who is able to bully who? If we swapped the power the west has with the east, the east would behave just like the west. There is nothing inherently morally superior about the east that would prevent this. In addition, countries with less power are often found to be more internally corrupt. Don't mistake lack of bullying for lack of corruption.

Is it causing you any symptoms you are aware of?

Solidarité. Perhaps a foreshadowing of things to come in November for the US. For the idealists out there, it's worth noting that it required cooperation between centrists and leftists for this to happen.

@Rafael Thundercat Too conspiratorial and pointing the finger at elites.

The US is not uniquely corrupt. It simply has more power to abuse because it has been so successful. No third world country can instigate a coup against a first-world country because they have no power to do so. But they would if they could. https://www.transparency.org/en/cpi/2023

If you want to go with polls, here is a poll from the NYT suggesting Trump is ahead: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/us/elections/polls-president.html Here is an aggregate of polls that suggest Trump may be edging over Biden, although it is close: https://www.realclearpolling.com/latest-polls This is not to suggest that my polls are right and yours are wrong. Or that I know Trump will win. I'm simply saying we don't truly know at this point. And people who feel certain one way or the other are likely self-deceived in their certainty. If you want that, fine. My point was simply that Trump has no interest in that.

Oh, much worse. With Trump it will be UNHINGED American selfishness. If you think that Trump is a monster, then you should agree that this monster is not capable of giving a shit about Russia, Ukraine, Palestine or any of this. This monster will not do your bidding. Trump will use the power of the American military against foreign countries in the same way he runs his own life, which is complete selfishness. He will fuck over the rest of the world just like he fucks over everyone else, to whatever degree he is allowed. The reason he hasn't been able to do so is because the world is smart enough not to allow such things. But this is the kind of character we are talking about. It's not that Joe Biden being a weak senile man makes him less capable of destruction. It's that he is orders of magnitude more morally developed and less corrupt than Trump. And yes, that is true despite whatever evil you feel America is currently doing in the world. It's actually not Americans that will suffer the most from this. Americans may actually benefit to some degree from Trump's unhinged selfishness. He will put America above every other country. At least until it backfires. So it's actually the rest of the world that will suffer the most. You think Trump is going to bring you the justice you seek, but in the end it will be everyone who suffers.

Trump agenda has nothing to do with creating an enlightened balance of liberalism and conservatism. We attempt to do that kind of SD Tier 2 thinking on this forum. But that's not what this is. Yes, that's what makes it bad. It's very obvious from studying history what the problems of dictatorships are. And why the US Founding Fathers themselves went to great lengths to ensure that power would not end up being concentrated in the hands of one person or even a few people. It doesn't need to be new to be a problem. Because the SCOTUS just granted Trump a form of presidential immunity from being held liable to the law. This is a huge deal. Also, many people are concerned over Biden's recent debate performance and are questioning his ability to win. The reality is that there are all kinds of predictions and interpretations of the polling out there. We don't know who is going to win. But a Trump victory is certainly not out of the realm of possibility, not even by a long shot. Therefore it must be taken seriously, especially when the stakes are so high if he wins. +1

Yes that's exactly right. A democratic leader can only be as wise as the citizenry that elect them. We have Trump, Biden and RFK because they deeply appeal to the majority of Americans. Of course a better candidate is still theoretically possible. This is not set in stone. But these three have been very successful at persuading people to vote for them. Also, Trump is just power-hungry and willing to manipulate at a level many normal people are not. So it could be argued that he has gotten to the top through deception and not genuine appeal, which is a problem. But nonetheless, people still like him because he is effective at playing into their value system.

Oh, just a half autocratic government. I see. Here’s how to understand Trump: he will seize whatever power he possibly can. This is not an overreaction. This is exactly what he has proven through his own behavior. And there are many that would support him in doing just that. The ONLY reason he is not dictator now is because the US had enough checks and balances to prevent it. But they will be targeted moving forward. If you think Trump is just going to go home after his next four year term, you are mistaken. It was obvious that a peaceful transition of power after his first term would be tenuous. Now it will be even worse.

This is foolish. If you think American foreign policy is bad now, under Trump it will only get worse.

Speaking of moonshots

It's not really that we are talking past each other. I understand their argument and I think they understand mine. We just disagree on certain nuances. Here is their position summarized: "Trump won because people were fed up with the establishment and wanted change, which he tapped into. The democrats could have won, but they selected a more status quo politician like Hilary rather than Bernie. Bernie was actually more popular because he was more anti-establishment and promised people the change they wanted, but he was disadvantaged by the primary which only caters to and is biased towards DNC insiders. Here is polling showing how well Bernie would have done with independents, which shows he could win a general. Here is an article showing that the DNC colluded against Bernie. So if it wasn't for DNC corruption and the two party system, Bernie would have won." ^ It's not a totally unreasonable take. I can see how someone would draw that conclusion. And there's some truth to it. But I am arguing that there are subtler distinctions that are being missed here. If the DNC is corrupt and colluded against Bernie, that is actually proof that he wasn't electable. He couldn't even appeal to enough democrats, which is why they colluded against him. But let's relate all this back to Biden before we derail this thread with Bernie again. BOTH of you believe that Biden doesn't have a chance to win and should probably be replaced. This is not a coincidence, given how you see alternative, anti-establishment candidates like Bernie. You think these people can win. You think people want these candidates. And what I'm suggesting is that's not how it works. Centrists win elections. By the simple fact that elections are about who appeals, often on a superficial level, to the most number of people. That's democracy. And most people are in the center. They are not radicals and they're not progressives. They don't even follow politics all that closely. Of course alternative candidates can still sometimes win elections. But usually their victories tend to be more niche. The more broad you go, the harder it becomes for that strategy to work because you will start alienating more and more people. And the presidency is the ultimate for general appeal. Then you ask, "but then how did Trump win the election? He was such an anti-establishment radical who won because people wanted big change!" And that's exactly why I tried to bash you over the head with the fact that actually Trump catered to American culture quite well. He fits what a lot of SD Blue / Orange people want and plays into the culture war perfectly. There's nothing mysterious about this. Also, consider that Trump WAS, and still is, widely unpopular. He couldn't even become a two-term president. And who did people react and replace him with? Sleepy Joe Biden. One of the most establishment politicians we have. Of course it's possible Trump wins in 2024 and I will have to eat those words. But nonetheless, that Joe Biden won at all shows that most people are not looking for extreme candidates. It's simply not possible for them to succeed. Especially not when it comes to sustainability. You have to appreciate what it actually takes to win a presidential election. No fringe, alternative candidate is capable of this. You have to recognize that, otherwise you will be forever supporting moonshots.

No more on this. We've derailed this thread enough.

That is not change! To call that "change" is a joke. You can use that word if you want, but it's not really change. Change actually requires a new way of doing things and evolving to higher values. Change would be if some evangelical preacher suddenly became an atheist. That would be some serious change. Which is exactly Trump's promise, when you peel off all the bullshit and spin. None of that is what makes someone anti-establishment. To truly be anti-establishment, Trump would have to actually confront deeply held American values. Which of course he never did. Bernie did though. Bernie challenged America. And he lost for it. I will grant you that an "anti-establishment" message can have a surface level appeal. Certainly, Trump was able to tap into people's dissatisfaction. Trump is a narcissistic manipulator and he will twist things however he needs. But if you cut through all the bullshit, fundamentally MAGA people did not want real change. They still do not. That is why it's popular. Trump has no interest in challenging anything fundamental to American culture. That would just make things more difficult for him. The easiest path to power is just to play into what most people already believe in.

Of course I do. It's in the title: MAKE AMERICAN GREAT AGAIN. Again. As in, before. As in, what it was. As in, traditional American values. Trump's whole appeal is to the SD Blue / Orange system. There is nothing radical about this. That IS what America has always been about. Listen to some Trump voters. They pine for the good ol' days. When men were men, and women were women. When we were about Christian values. When people recited the Pledge of Allegiance. When you could drive your gas-guzzling truck and not these liberal woke electric vehicles. Everything about this is establishment. Get it?

No he doesn't. That's your whole misunderstanding. Theoretically, of course you are right. But those things aren't what Americans actually care about. Religion is part of it. It's really the entire SD Blue / Orange value system. YES. Some are. But of course some are more developed. We have a lot of Green people as well. All that would require education and development of the average voter to appreciate and understand. It doesn't matter if your policies are theoretically better for people. What matters is optics.

@Raze these are my final statements about this because we are derailing this thread with Bernie and getting off-topic. You need a sufficient amount of general appeal to win a primary. Yes, Bernie probably appealed to independents in polling because he was more of an outsider. But that's not enough. If you cannot win over the people in your own primary, that shows how little support there actually is for your campaign. You are not going to win a general. The idea that Bernie didn't have enough popularity to win his primary but suddenly would have enough popularity to beat Trump is backwards. Actually, in a sense they did want the establishment. That's what the promise of MAGA is: Make American what it used to be like. Appeal to traditional, conservative Christian values. Fight the "woke" Green culture movement. Embrace capitalism, business and deregulation. Patriarchy, nationalism and white people. This is what we've always had. Trump is exactly what appeals to a mainstream American audience. This is what a huge percentage of Americans believe in. Trump feels like AMERICA to them. Bernie Sanders appeals to none of that. He is in opposition to it. Trump gives the veneer of change, which appeals to people. While Bernie Sanders was actual change. Fake growth vs real growth. The entire "change" that Trump promised, and continues to promise, is essentially to resist SD Green people like Bernie. And he won, even against someone who wasn't as radical like Hilary. That's how much people are interested in maintaining the status quo. Trump is even more status quo than Hilary. The point is that Bernie had less mainstream appeal than either of them.

That's exactly where you have it backwards. Bernie did not have enough general appeal to even win a primary. That's really the correct interpretation. If you make the election even more general and extend it outside of a primary, he would have done even worse. Really consider how radical of a candidate Bernie was for most people. Think about how polarizing he was, and how strongly people reacted against him. Think about how much genuine change he represented and the threat he was to the established ways of doing things. And not "Trump" change, which is really just about faux appealing to SD Blue values, but actual higher values. Then think about Biden and Hilary, both of whom were more established, mainstream, status quo politicians. Who weren't going to push for as much change and who seem like more safe, traditional politicians. THAT is why they beat Bernie. I didn't say "only". I said they had the most mainstream appeal. Which is true. The reality is that even without a two-party system, only one person can win the presidency. And Bernie would have still lost. In a three-way election between Trump, Hilary and Bernie, Bernie comes in last.

Hilary was more electable than Bernie. Yes that's exactly right. And what is the proof? It's the fact that she beat Bernie. No theoretical polling matters when we have the actual results of actual elections. Again, the fact that primary voters are a small fraction of the voting base works AGAINST Bernie. Because the more voters you include, the more mainstream appeal you need. Hilary and Biden both had more mainstream appeal. So they won. The end.

Just because you win over some independents in polling does not mean you will win a general. Look, I like Bernie a lot. In many ways I like him better than Biden. But you have to be realistic about electibility. If Bernie was the more electable candidate, he would have won. Period. Everything else is cope.

That works against Bernie. Because Bernie was more of a niche, radical politician for people in the US. The more general and more people you include, the less of a shot Bernie had.

And that's a great example of how polling can be misleading. Bernie couldn't even secure the democratic nomination, let alone beat Trump. For all the progressives that were upset about Bernie losing, in retrospect I think we need to consider the fact that Joe Biden actually had the better shot of beating Trump. So if you don't like Trump, you should in a sense be happy about Biden's victory. Because otherwise you'd have another 4 years of Trump.

Actually I'd rather we'd debate this. If you think Biden is going to get blown out, then I have to assume you also think it would be a good idea to replace him. This is a serious discussion that needs to be had. It's not something to just shrug off as a difference of opinion.