# Joe Biden vs Donald Trump



## Lakigigar (Jan 4, 2016)

Who would you vote for?

(hypothetically, foreigners are allowed to vote too)


----------



## Lakigigar (Jan 4, 2016)

I voted unsure / no opinion, i have arguments to vote for Biden or Trump eitherway, and it will depend on the campaign. For now, i lean slightly towards Trump after preferring Sanders in 2016 and being long in doubt for the generals but supporting Trump in 2016 even enthusiastically. I'm disappointed by his presidency. I had expected more from it, although i don't care about twitter rants, the fake news allegiations and so on... I even believe it helps them, because his real problem is his lack of accomplishments for working class people, but i don't think Biden will be a better president for them, and i have strong reservations about him. Both have sexual allegiations against them, so i won't take that in account. I voted unsure because it will depend on more, but as for now, a slight lean towards Trump. I might change my mind, but I like his attitude and personality and his lack of political correctness, because things have clearly gone too far. He's just not a president for the working class and lower mid class. That's the issue i have with him.


----------



## Lucan1010 (Jul 23, 2018)

Definitely not Trump, but I don't really like Biden either. He's flimsy on dealing with climate change and all of the groping allegations have made me feel a bit uneasy.


----------



## jamaix (Sep 20, 2013)

If it comes down to Trump or Biden, I'll vote Trump.


----------



## HIX (Aug 20, 2018)

It probably won't be down to these two. Could be wrong.


----------



## Paulie (Jun 23, 2011)

jamaix said:


> If it comes down to Trump or Biden, I'll vote Trump.


How could you?


----------



## The Dude (May 20, 2010)

Both suck. I'm not voting or writing in a candidate if it comes down to the orange doofus and Mr. Touchy McFeely...voted under SP.


----------



## threeblacksevens (Apr 11, 2019)

I clicked unsure/other because despite Joe Biden being better, he would still have America being America. By that I mean invading foreign countries that are resource-rich and not pro-US, exploiting other third world countries, and in general acting like the police of the world. There are three main things he would do better as far as I can see:

- He would not be terrible at diplomacy
- His rhetoric wouldn’t inspire racism and become a part of the conservative to fascist pipeline*
- He would likely return to friendship with U.S. allies.

However, since pretty much anyone other than Trump would do those things, if he’s president for another four years it’s (almost) guaranteed that there will be someone back to normal. Problem is the normal is awful too. 

Basically I wouldn’t vote for either major party unless there was a social democrat running, or at least some sort of progressive. I’d probably vote socialist or something as a protest vote, despite not being a socialist.



*I’m not saying Trump is a fascist, but it’s very clear that the alt-right (who are fascists, alt-right is a name they chose to try and gain more legitimacy) have been gaining a lot of ground since he came around. He’s more like a useful idiot than an evil genius.


----------



## Surreal Breakfast (Oct 24, 2008)

Dead battery VS sewerage. What would you vote for? Hmmm...


----------



## Katie Koopa (Jun 25, 2014)

Ugh, neither.


----------



## PowerShell (Feb 3, 2013)

Biden by a long shot.


----------



## Im FiNe (Oct 17, 2013)

You didn't supply an option for "neither".


----------



## Penny (Mar 24, 2016)

I'd want to see their campaign focuses and promises, watch the debates and stuff. Trump hasn't proven himself to me yet and I don't know much about Biden. Like Trump put taxes on online shopping and stuff from China and stuff.. I think that's fair. I'd like to see what he does with the money that generates though. Besides that I can't say he's really done anything else that I've felt or noticed. Besides break his campaign allusion about legalizing bud (though he did change his stance mid-election too.)


----------



## Snowflake Minuet (Feb 20, 2016)

I'm certainly not a fan of Biden's, but he's by far the lesser of two evils here.


----------



## Lakigigar (Jan 4, 2016)

The internet hates both.


----------



## Mange (Jan 9, 2011)

Poll should be public smh


----------



## Hexigoon (Mar 12, 2018)

Begrudgingly, Joe "I have no empathy [for the younger generation]" Biden. 
But fuck that, get Bernie in there!


----------



## Judson Joist (Oct 25, 2013)

*Joe Biden hates Millennials* who are among the working poor.


----------



## Tropes (Jul 7, 2016)

Joe Biden, and at this point he is one of the very few democrats where this would be my answer. I don't think it's going to happen though, he is too much of a centrist, a pragmatist and a ciswhitemalehumankin-ist to appeal to the regressive party.


----------



## Monadnock (May 27, 2017)

Trump's administration today doesn't have the same tone he had when he was still a candidate, and we were seeing signs that he was going to tell the interventionists and Israel Firsters to take a hike. I voted for him partially because I saw him as a peace candidate. That was before Bolton and Pompeo became part of his administration. He needs to throw them out and get more sane replacements or we're risking repeating with Iran what happened with Iraq and Afghanistan.


----------



## Tropes (Jul 7, 2016)

Spacenik86 said:


> I prefer Confucius to Locke, Jefferson or the Cosmopolitan.


Ok... Why do you think Confucius - if he was alive today - would reject western individualism and hedonism?


----------



## Blazkovitz (Mar 16, 2014)

Tropes said:


> Ok... Why do you think Confucius - if he was alive today - would reject western individualism and hedonism?


I think a more competent person than me has answered it here:
https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/against-in...ons-of-morality-politics-family-and-religion/


----------



## Tropes (Jul 7, 2016)

Spacenik86 said:


> I think a more competent person than me has answered it here:
> https://ndpr.nd.edu/news/against-in...ons-of-morality-politics-family-and-religion/


That was insightful, though I somewhat disagree with the ultimate conclusion:


> As Rosemont boldly declares, we must take a stance Against Individualism and walk the path of a Confucian role-bearing person in her spiritual quest of an ever more inclusive and just global community.


I can't help but feel that the author is grabbing at straws, trying to take an insight out of context and apply it to justify that which he already believes in terms of collectivist justice. My view of Confucius - admittedly probably not as deeply researched as the authors - is that he was first and foremost a pragmatist, having an intuitive conception of game theory and applying it on a case by case basis - I can't prove it because he does not articulate it within a meta-narrative but all of his solutions follow up on it. That he held family as a primary value is not really confucian so much as just Chinese, the view of self and family that would have being common at the time, and his articulation of it was more of an answer to the question "how do you build stability into a system built around competing aristocrats". The answer ofcourse is that while your family might win be in an advantage today, it can loose tomorrow, and your agreement is meaningless if your child doesn't grow up obligated to carry it, so you present a lasting framing where you must respect the past of your family and build toward its future. To apply the Confucian mindframe is not to take the same commentary about the aristocracy of Lu and apply it to our society, but rather to ask the same questions he ask - how do you set the incentives to play out in the long run to maximize social prosperity - and apply that mindset to our society. With that in mind, I can't imagine he would favor a collectivist view of justice that favors holding onto grudges for the crimes of one's ancestors quite as much as the author seems to want to believe.


----------



## Blazkovitz (Mar 16, 2014)

Tropes said:


> That was insightful, though I somewhat disagree with the ultimate conclusion:
> 
> I can't help but feel that the author is grabbing at straws, trying to take an insight out of context and apply it to justify that which he already believes in terms of collectivist justice. My view of Confucius - admittedly probably not as deeply researched as the authors - is that he was first and foremost a pragmatist, having an intuitive conception of game theory and applying it on a case by case basis - I can't prove it because he does not articulate it within a meta-narrative but all of his solutions follow up on it. That he held family as a primary value is not really confucian so much as just Chinese, the view of self and family that would have being common at the time, and his articulation of it was more of an answer to the question "how do you build stability into a system built around competing aristocrats". The answer ofcourse is that while your family might win be in an advantage today, it can loose tomorrow, and your agreement is meaningless if your child doesn't grow up obligated to carry it, so you present a lasting framing where you must respect the past of your family and build toward its future. To apply the Confucian mindframe is not to take the same commentary about the aristocracy of Lu and apply it to our society, but rather to ask the same questions he ask - how do you set the incentives to play out in the long run to maximize social prosperity - and apply that mindset to our society. With that in mind, I can't imagine he would favor a collectivist view of justice that favors holding onto grudges for the crimes of one's ancestors quite as much as the author seems to want to believe.


I had something else in mind. SJW "view of justice that favors holding onto grudges for the crimes of one's ancestors" is something few people are interested in, it mostly exist in the academia. The author of the article never alluded to it. For me Western civilization is first about capitalism, and also about the selfishness and hedonism promoted by pop culture and lifestyle pundits. Capitalism is definitely more influential than SJW ideals, unless you mean the Stanford and Harvard bubbles. Confucius' ideal of the perfect man was at odds with a "sex, drugs and rock-and-roll" way of life. Confucius would also hate capitalism, since he said:
*The virtuous man is driven by responsibility, the non-virtuous man is driven by profit*

You also mentioned hadiths. I've often criticised Islam, but there are two things the West can learn from them: the value of modesty and rejection of alcohol. The burka is atrocious, but we could return to something like Catholic "Marylike modesty".


----------



## Tropes (Jul 7, 2016)

Spacenik86 said:


> I had something else in mind. SJW "view of justice that favors holding onto grudges for the crimes of one's ancestors" is something few people are interested in, it mostly exist in the academia. The author of the article never alluded to it. For me Western civilization is first about capitalism, and also about the selfishness and hedonism promoted by pop culture and lifestyle pundits. Capitalism is definitely more influential than SJW ideals, unless you mean the Stanford and Harvard bubbles. Confucius' ideal of the perfect man was at odds with a "sex, drugs and rock-and-roll" way of life. Confucius would also hate capitalism, since he said:
> *The virtuous man is driven by responsibility, the non-virtuous man is driven by profit*


IDK if it's phrased differently in the book, but "her spiritual quest of an ever more inclusive and just global community" sounded to me like alluding to SJW ideals, and I figured the author is probably an academic himself. 

Confucius has to rationalize a mental reorganization of a caste system, one in which the idea of a trader would today fit more under the category of logistics then finance, and it was in that sense in which he wanted to make sure traders do not own land, possibly because he saw the potential risk for a new aristocracy that could emerge and destabilize society by threatening the ruling class - as it did eventually in europe. I don't know if he would necessarily favor a caste system today though - certainly we have all too many social roles and specializations and cross-field areas for that to fit nicely.


----------



## Blazkovitz (Mar 16, 2014)

Tropes said:


> IDK if it's phrased differently in the book, but "her spiritual quest of an ever more inclusive and just global community" sounded to me like alluding to SJW ideals, and I figured the author is probably an academic himself.


Inclusive is indeed a sinister word, and the entire sentence does sound SJW. But she might have inserted that in order to avoid the wrath of "SJW inquisitors". 



> Confucius has to rationalize a mental reorganization of a caste system, one in which the idea of a trader would today fit more under the category of logistics then finance.


So you think he would favour a mental reorganization of crapitalism?


----------



## angelfish (Feb 17, 2011)

Biden, certainly. 

I'd _prefer_ a moderate liberal with libertarian leanings because I think that would be best for the country but I'm honestly starting to be of the "anyone but Trump" camp. The man behaves like a grade-school bully. It's insanity that he is a world leader and yet his speech and actions would be chided in a 3rd grade classroom. I'd take another Bush legacy. Ted Cruz. Geez. Just not an immature, media-obsessed narcissist, please.


----------



## Tropes (Jul 7, 2016)

Spacenik86 said:


> Inclusive is indeed a sinister word, and the entire sentence does sound SJW. But she might have inserted that in order to avoid the wrath of "SJW inquisitors".


Possibly.



Spacenik86 said:


> So you think he would favour a mental reorganization of crapitalism?


Or use it as a lever.... I wouldn't be surprised if said modern day clone of Confucius would spend half of his intellectual time and effort on restructuring banking and financial incentives. 

Honestly if we're going to have a few new starts off of this rock, that's probably one of the most important things we're going to have to do as well... Whether by means of a social engineering genius or by a lot of experimentation and trial and error... I'd rather clone the social engineering genius, seems like a time saver.


----------



## Paulie (Jun 23, 2011)

hell with Biden, how about Tulsi?


----------



## Paulie (Jun 23, 2011)

more Tulsi, on pardoning Snowden


----------



## contradictionary (Apr 1, 2018)

Whatever.


----------



## Penny (Mar 24, 2016)

so after reading Biden's ontheissues.com I'd pick Trump. Biden doesn't seem that bad but his stance on drugs is deplorable. that's an automatic disqualification for me. i know my concerns.


----------



## Paulie (Jun 23, 2011)

https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/what-are-the-chances-of-trump-being-reelected

from the article:

The good news for Trump is that he retains a solid base of support, and the demographic to which he has the strongest appeal—white Americans who don’t have a college degree—still represents a very big chunk of the electorate. Plus, the unemployment rate is just 3.5 per cent, and most Americans are optimistic about the economy. The bad news for the Trump campaign is that other demographic groups seem to have turned even more heavily against him, and a strong economy has failed to lift his approval ratings. Moreover, recent polls suggest that he is in trouble in a number of battleground states, including the three that were key to his victory last time: Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

Paulie said:


> https://www.newyorker.com/news/our-columnists/what-are-the-chances-of-trump-being-reelected
> 
> from the article:
> 
> The good news for Trump is that he retains a solid base of support, and the demographic to which he has the strongest appeal—white Americans who don’t have a college degree—still represents a very big chunk of the electorate.


This is why Republican lawmakers will always be hostile to higher education in the US. (lol Jk--kind of.)

--

I would vote for Biden because he's not Trump and he's not a Republican.


----------



## contradictionary (Apr 1, 2018)

Forget it. It won't matter anyway.


----------



## Suntide (Dec 22, 2018)

I don't like Biden but I would _never_ vote Trump. Most likely in this scenario I would vote third party. Because it's better than not voting at all, and votes to third parties mean maybe they'll get more funding next election and help rip us out of this shitty two-party system.


----------



## 3CatNight (Jun 27, 2019)

If Biden is the only alternative you're offering to Trump, then I'll vote for Biden. But damn. If those are the two choices on election day, I'll probably vote for a third party. It's not like it matters how I vote in the presidential election anyway. I don't live in a swing state.


----------



## Brighid (Jun 30, 2019)

Lakigigar said:


> I voted unsure / no opinion, i have arguments to vote for Biden or Trump eitherway, and it will depend on the campaign. For now, i lean slightly towards Trump after preferring Sanders in 2016 and being long in doubt for the generals but supporting Trump in 2016 even enthusiastically. I'm disappointed by his presidency. I had expected more from it, although i don't care about twitter rants, the fake news allegiations and so on... I even believe it helps them, because his real problem is his lack of accomplishments for working class people, but i don't think Biden will be a better president for them, and i have strong reservations about him. Both have sexual allegiations against them, so i won't take that in account. I voted unsure because it will depend on more, but as for now, a slight lean towards Trump. I might change my mind, but I like his attitude and personality and his lack of political correctness, because things have clearly gone too far. He's just not a president for the working class and lower mid class. That's the issue i have with him.


Interesting. I agree with much of what you said, but Trump's attitude has warn me down. I don't make political correctness an issue of who to vote for, but he's so over the top sometimes. Then you have Biden whose whole campaign is anti-Trump. He has no ideas. He's just another cog in the wheel of the Washington machine. Meanwhile, candidates like Sanders and Warren are offering up potential plans. I like Sanders because he seems the smartest and most adaptable, like he can make lemonade out of lemons. I absolutely agree that I'd like to see issues that effect the poor and middle class, like health care, education, jobs for us in the Rust Belt, addressed far more and less of the politically correct, social issues.

All in all it's almost always a case of meet the new boss, same as the old boss, which is why I don't vote.


----------



## Brighid (Jun 30, 2019)

Paulie said:


> from the article:
> 
> The good news for Trump is that he retains a solid base of support, and the demographic to which he has the strongest appeal—white Americans who don’t have a college degree—still represents a very big chunk of the electorate. Plus, the unemployment rate is just 3.5 per cent, and most Americans are optimistic about the economy. The bad news for the Trump campaign is that other demographic groups seem to have turned even more heavily against him, and a strong economy has failed to lift his approval ratings. Moreover, recent polls suggest that he is in trouble in a number of battleground states, including the three that were key to his victory last time: Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin.


To somewhat echo what I said in the post above, those of us living in the Rust Belt states don't generally have anyone addressing the issues that concern us most. I think that's why we end up as the battleground states.


----------



## Lakigigar (Jan 4, 2016)

I would support Trump after Kamala destroyed Biden.


----------



## arcticfox (Aug 27, 2019)

Surreal Snake said:


> They'd make a good couple. Two super narcissists


I think narcissism is an essential component in anyone seeking election to political office. Sadly.


----------



## Forest Nymph (Aug 25, 2018)

Now that Trump is being impeached I could say Biden, but I don't think either one of them are good. Trump is openly bad, Uncle Joe is secretly bad (hilarious that his "affectionate" title is Uncle....anyway...). 

Objectively I don't like anyone except Bernie Sanders and Tulsi Gabbard. Actually Tulsi Gabbard is the only politician I morally align with - she's vegan, a veteran, she understands real life but still has morals - but I don't expect her to get elected, which is why I still love Bernie. I almost want to say "settle for" Bernie because although he was more than enough for me in 2016, I don't like the fact that he didn't stand up for the environment at or after the Steak Fry. The Steak Fry was a damning and ridiculous act of hypocrisy on the part of the Democrats, even though they offered veggie burgers and yams, most of them ate red meat. Cory Booker openly approached the veggie burger grill, but he's backed away from every opportunity to talk about how meat relates to climate change, because he's afraid people won't vote for him. He stumbles on the tired "factory farms" narrative that all vegan Uncle Toms revert to under pressure (I do it myself, please don't eat factory farmed products, please just not that) ....but he's missed opportunities to talk about how even grassfed cattle harm the environment. Because he's afraid of being the Catholic, Mormon, weirdo in the race. I can't really blame him, also being Black, but I find it hard to forgive him because he's such a disgusting Centrist.

So yeah I guess I'm saying no Cory Booker for me even though eating veggie burger at Steak Fry, because overall, I only think Tulsi Gabbard is the best person, but Bernie Sanders is the closest to my morals and likely to get elected by the populist vote.

Fuck you, Uncle Joe.


----------



## WraithOfNightmare (Jun 20, 2019)

If I have to choose between the two I'd still vote Trump over Biden because it's a fact that Biden's son has some direct business ties with the CCP, therefore making it more likely that Biden's going to be soft on the CCP. Trump has not been hard enough on the CCP as he's a businessman at heart, if I were him I would not give AF about the trade deal and do everything I can to counter the CCP militarily, politically, and economically. US is not an angel but it's the lesser of two monsters when compared to the CCP and if I had to choose which country to remain the superpower in the world I'd much prefer America over the CCP. The CCP has got no regard for fundamental political, civil, and social freedoms, not only is it a threat to my people but it actively seeks to export its system to the world, a system that stands against democracy and liberty.

If the monumental task of bringing down the CCP can be achieved, I believe we would have much more confidence bringing down other authoritarian regimes including Kim, Putin, Iran, Syria, Cuba, Laos, Turkey etc. I even hope that one day the Middle East will have its monarchies removed and replaced by electoral democracies but for now I know the US won't do anything because Turkey's a key ally and the Gulf states, well, oil.

I am not a fan of US foreign policy, but for a country of its power and influence, I believe the US has been a relatively idealistic regime (in terms of some principles) that, while having committed its fair share of atrocities, is still relatively benign when compared to other superpowers in world history. Had it not been for US involvement, the world could have turned out far worse at critical junctures such as World War 2. Like, would anyone really want to live under Nazi or imperial Japanese domination? Sure the Soviets were by far the largest force holding back Hitler in Europe and Russia suffered greatly for it, but the US was by far the most technologically innovative in the mid-to-late stages of the war when it comes to the technologies that played a decisive role.

I long to see a democratic China that can really uphold Sun's Three Principles of the People, so I'd naturally be against any force in the world that supports or tries to appease the CCP. We're seeing media outlets across the world censor themselves due to the wishes of the CCP / because they're afraid of offending the CCP. I'm Han but I feel very sorry for the cultural genocide being conducted against Uyghurs and Tibetans (in the former it's not just the Muslim extremists, the CCP can find just about anyone or anything "unacceptable", and since mainland China has no rule of law and the Party is above everything, they are unstoppable if you get on the wrong side), not just them, but a subtle war is being waged against Cantonese language and culture.

Add to that forced demolitions, human organ harvesting, the soon-to-be widely implemented Social Credit System, how the CCP already possesses some of the world's most advanced technologies in the areas of surveillance and population control but mainlanders are either too brainwashed (and therefore support it), too apathetic, or too afraid to speak out and generate resistance, the Cultural Revolution (one of the worse things to happen to mankind), 1989, the current events in Hong Kong etc.

Mister / Mrs. President, I may not agree with everything your country says and does, but please do a favor for the world: GO TOUGH ON THE CCP! We cannot afford to wait and let the CCP become the most powerful in the world. If there's got to be a "world policeman" I'd rather have America than the CCP.

Some ultra-liberal types believe any regime, just about anything that opposes the US must be good and just. Classic "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" way of thinking. What they don't realize is the enemy of the enemy may very well be a far more dangerous enemy. A CCP (note, CCP, I do not conflate CCP with China or the Chinese people / culture, though that's what many of my fellow mainlanders believe due to decades of brainwashing) and Russian dominated world would be far more scary. Anyone who actually says they support these sick regimes, who believe they're willing to give up fundamental freedoms (even little, everyday things) for greater protection and security have obviously never lived under an authoritarian regime.

Before debating all of these social issues (which of course matter), I'd like to bring the focus to some of the broader issues we face in the world today. Not saying these social causes don't matter, but in the grand view of things we've got more important values to defend against the forces that want to undermine or even destroy these values in favor of their far less desirable values. We have to look and play big, and realize what's at stake. Once these bigger geopolitical issues are tackled, then we can slowly make progress in these social issues.

As a non-American / non-Westerner, I feel that these days the youth in America and other Western countries have lost sight of the things that really matter. Many living in Western countries have the time, and the freedom to debate over many of these social issues because as flawed as democracy might be, it's still the best compared to any of its less democratic alternatives and with refinement, is and will remain the best system that's realistically achievable when it comes to managing at least somewhat sizable populations. Many people from other countries (such as mine) have no freedom whatsoever to even bring up a somewhat different voice, much less CAMPAIGN and DEMAND these views and preferences to have a foothold in the country and society.

You're a bunch of lucky bastards (I don't mean to offend / insult, but to praise) compared to some of your peers living in non-Western countries, it would be wise for you to cherish these freedoms and realize that despite your differences that often make you argumentative, it's because of some basic democratic foundations that make it possible for you all to raise your voices and differences in the first place. You have separation of government and party, we don't. You have the separation of powers, we don't. You have an independent judiciary and legislative branch, we don't. You can vote at the national level, we can't. If you own a piece of property then it's yours unless you decide to sell it, we technically never "own" our property, we just lease it for 70 years because CCP said so and we have no guarantee as to what happens to it once the lease reaches the 70th year. And the CCP can just come in and take property whenever they want to support a real estate tycoon in the area, they won't hesitate to resort to thugs and blackmail if they deem necessary.

Wake up! Instead of engaging in SJW activities all the time, a piece of wisdom would be that despite all the injustices there might be in your society / societies, you have far more freedoms that some other countries' inhabitants can only dream of! There are causes on a global scale FAR more worthy of concern and reflection, once that's taken care of you there's going to be time to take care of these other concerns.

I often see that this group or that group are fighting against the injustices perpetrated against them in society, it's usually this or that particular group of people. I feel for some of them and not for others, but at the same time there are entire groups of people in other parts of the world who are fighting just to establish or to preserve their most basic rights and freedoms from oppressive governments and it's an ongoing fight for them. Do you think being a Christian under the CCP or the Kim regime is more or less the same experience as being a Christian in the States? So many of the freedoms the Western world (and non-Western countries that are democratic) believe and seemingly take for granted are out-of-reach luxuries for other peoples in the world.

You may care about issues affecting gender rights, animals, the environment etc. Sure, progress needs to be made in all of these areas and more. However, I'd urge more attention to be paid to a much larger struggle with an inconvenient truth: The struggle of freedom and democracy versus authoritarianism. That if given enough time and opportunity, these authoritarian regimes may well surpass us in power and influence. What kind of world would humanity ultimately want to live in? I'd pick a liberal democratic world order any day.

Just try living a life being effectively shut out from the world internet and having to gain access to a lot of information using a VPN, which is often unreliable and is constantly under attack.

Regardless of whether you're S or N, regardless of your Enneagram type or Socionics type or whatever, I think we can all agree that there are fundamental rights and freedoms that all should be defending.


----------



## contradictionary (Apr 1, 2018)

WraithOfNightmare said:


> If I have to choose between the two I'd still vote Trump over Biden because it's a fact that Biden's son has some direct business ties with the CCP, therefore making it more likely that Biden's going to be soft on the CCP. Trump has not been hard enough on the CCP as he's a businessman at heart, if I were him I would not give AF about the trade deal and do everything I can to counter the CCP militarily, politically, and economically. US is not an angel but it's the lesser of two monsters when compared to the CCP and if I had to choose which country to remain the superpower in the world I'd much prefer America over the CCP. The CCP has got no regard for fundamental political, civil, and social freedoms, not only is it a threat to my people but it actively seeks to export its system to the world, a system that stands against democracy and liberty.
> 
> If the monumental task of bringing down the CCP can be achieved, I believe we would have much more confidence bringing down other authoritarian regimes including Kim, Putin, Iran, Syria, Cuba, Laos, Turkey etc. I even hope that one day the Middle East will have its monarchies removed and replaced by electoral democracies but for now I know the US won't do anything because Turkey's a key ally and the Gulf states, well, oil.
> 
> ...


"You're a bunch of lucky baizuo!", you mean. Hehe. You nailed it dude, these people has no slightest clue that they are infact, very privileged. 

_Sent from my SO-03J sans PC_


----------



## Paulie (Jun 23, 2011)




----------



## contradictionary (Apr 1, 2018)

I love it when you love each other. I love it when you love ******* liberals, whoever that is. Looks fit and unwittingly similar in views and attitudes.


----------



## Paulie (Jun 23, 2011)




----------



## jamaix (Sep 20, 2013)

https://www.bostonherald.com/2019/0...si-for-lifting-the-democrats-corruption-rock/


----------



## Lakigigar (Jan 4, 2016)

Bump. I voted Trump.


----------



## contradictionary (Apr 1, 2018)

Lakigigar said:


> Bump. I voted Trump.


LoL



_Sent sans PC_


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

@Paulie







:laughing:


----------



## Meliodas (Nov 16, 2016)

I would vote for Trump. 

The first reason that comes to mind is his energy policy. Trump understands that cheap, readily available energy and carbon are both vital conditions for a healthy economy. Anyone with even a basic understanding of chemistry will know that oxidizable carbon is essential for making steel, plastics, roads, tyres, pharmaceuticals, clothes and much more besides. Also, cheap energy, in the form of coal, allows these products to be produced at an internationally competitive price, meaning more jobs and greater prosperity. Bans on fracking and coal mining would wipe out some of the most productive sectors of the American economy and remove much of our economic leverage over other countries.


----------



## DudeGuy (Aug 5, 2013)

Inside Job said:


> tyres,


Tires, foreigner.


----------



## DudeGuy (Aug 5, 2013)

WraithOfNightmare said:


> If I have to choose between the two I'd still vote Trump


fake


----------



## Strelnikov (Jan 19, 2018)

@WraithOfNightmare Excellent summary of communism and what it's like. Also, you do make an excellent point regarding the West... I see these things the same way, although... there is a kernel of truth there, but it's blown out of proportion (I do see some things that are genuinely bad). I see that in the decades between the fall of communism in my country and now, they're still the same (of course, under a veil of capitalist entrepreneur respectability nowadays, but I assume they're still the same butchers). I also assume that a lot of economic miracles are made up (communists loved to invent numbers to show off imaginary achievements).

But I'm not sure I agree on the way you see Trump... From my point of view he's too friendly to people like Kim, Putin, Xi, etc. I see him as weak. Even weaker than Obama before him. He talks tough, but... does nothing effective. Also, he seems to be too chummy with people in my country who pretty much want to drag us back in the past, back towards dictatorship, to become once more a satellite state of Russia, with corruption running rampant. Also, he spreads lies about us, Europeans... I mean I have 2 cousins who went on multiple tours in Afghanistan to fight wars started by the US and Trump says about us that we're leeching off of them, that the EU and NATO exist to leech off of the US? Those are lies! And I can't support that!

My ideal would be someone... either Republican, but not Trump, or a Democrat with conservative views. Which brings me to Biden (he seems to fit the bill)... who just might be the only one worse than Trump in my eyes. This may seem a narrow concern, but he instigated a war against our brothers, the Serbs, in the 1990s. He was taking money from Albanians (supporting the UCK, a terrorist organisation in Kosovo) and encouraging the bombing of Serbia and the killing of Serb civilians. Why do I call Serbs brothers? We share our Orthodox faith with them and we never fought against each other... even when we were on opposite sides, we never attacked each other. During the 1990s, the UN had imposed an embargo on them and we were still doing business with them, ignoring the UN sanctions  After Kosovo proclaimed its independence, we, along with Spain, Greece (also part of the Orthodox brotherhood) and Slovakia are the only EU countries not to recognise their independence. Kosovo is Serbia! And Serbia decides what to do with its territory. Our official position is: we will be the first to recognise Kosovo's independence after Serbia. This isn't a matter of hostility towards Albanians, but a matter of respecting the territorial integrity of a country. It's one of our few foreign policies that genuinely make me proud. And Biden was instigating war all along... so yes, I do hate him.

But I really want to thank you for sharing your experience and your views! This place definitely needs more voices like yours, that would present informative, first-hand experiences about political regimes that people in the West only experience on TV or in books and even then, they get a filtered selection of information. And hopefully your 1989 (the year of our revolution that brought down communism) will come sooner rather than later.


----------



## Meliodas (Nov 16, 2016)

DudeGuy said:


> Tires, foreigner.


Clearly the less someone knows, the more confident they are about being right. You are walking proof of the Dunning-Kruger effect.

"Tires" is a less acceptable spelling than "tyres" for two reasons. Firstly, the "ai" in the former is stressed and held for longer than in, say, "tired", whose "r" is silent. This creates an audible difference that needs to be recognized in the grammar if people are to avoid mistakes. In English, "y" is often used as a stand-in to make the stressed vs unstressed "ai" distinction clear. Another similar example would be "lyre" vs "liar". Secondly, the word "tires", as in "he tires of life" is a verb and it has a completely different meaning to "tyres".


----------



## DudeGuy (Aug 5, 2013)

Inside Job said:


> Clearly the less someone knows, the more confident they are about being right. You are walking proof of the Dunning-Kruger effect.
> 
> "Tires" is a less acceptable spelling than "tyres" for two reasons. Firstly, the "ai" in the former is stressed and held for longer than in, say, "tired", whose "r" is silent. This creates an audible difference that needs to be recognized in the grammar if people are to avoid mistakes. In English, "y" is often used as a stand-in to make the stressed vs unstressed "ai" distinction clear. Another similar example would be "lyre" vs "liar". Secondly, the word "tires", as in "he tires of life" is a verb and it has a completely different meaning to "tyres".


 blah blah piss in the wind.


----------



## Innocentia (Jun 30, 2019)

I thought it would be good to inform that China isn't communist, it's an authoritarian capitalist state, like Russia, the USSR, Nazi germany, and many other authoritarian state of the modern era.

Communism and capitalism are two opposed *economical* systems, one allowing private property and the possibility to capitalize on it, the other forbiding private property. The public property is a mix of capitalism and communism, thus it isn't more communist than it is capitalist, in theory.

The second principle of communism is more political, it's that the means of productions belong to the workers. This is kind of a more detailed first principle as if this is realised, private property simply cannot exist. It's materialisation of the abolition of private property.

Public property can be seen as a private property unless the "workers", the citizen, have the means of the public institutions into their hands. A representative "democracy" is a delegation of the power of the citizen to a small number of representative, thus the second principle of communism if applied to a state, isn't respected. So the political system akin to communism is a more direct democracy, an actual democracy. Authoritarianism can't be, in theory, a system akin to communism as this require to trample the second principle. That doesn't exclude the possibility for a governement to not be communist and still brandish communism like China.

We have to understand that the people who established the USSR never respected the second principle, even for the firms, so even on an economical point of view, the USSR never have been a communist state. It's also very clear that the firms of China doesn't respect either the second principle.

In conclusion, it's false to see any of current presidential candidate of the entire world, US included, as willing to establish any form of communism as none, as of now, had ever been willing to establish, and if they have been, never realised it, even in the first steps. We have in front of our eyes a fight, with the political forces in the present, between capitalist-conservative authoritarian to representative republican (republic stand here for "res", a thing, and "publica", public, so a public thing), ultra-capitalist-liberal authoritarian to representative republican, to a social-liberal authoritarian to representative republican. The social-liberal, often called by the name of social-democrats, more often than not, more on the side of a representative republic, than the capitalist-conservative or the ultra-capitalist-liberal. I use the term republic as a representative democracy isn't a democracy but what the first republicans and liberals wanted, everything but a democracy. The representative system has been put in place only to appease a part of the democrats (I'm speaking from an european history point view, which have been imported and exported many times across the atlantic). Communist and more democratic political forces are simply not there, or only at the margin of some countries. That is, if we use the terms in a logical and clear manner, not distorted by the politicians and their interests, and all the rebranding they've done.


----------



## jetser (Jan 6, 2016)

I don't see how Biden is a solution to anything.

If it was between him or Trump I would be compelled to vote for Trump.
Most of the things that I was afraid of or were frightening in Trump were disproven or don't matter anymore and Biden is just wasted time.


----------



## Strelnikov (Jan 19, 2018)

jetser said:


> I don't see how Biden is a solution to anything.



Well, it depends on what you want. I was talking earlier today (it's evening here) to a friend of mine and she was sad because Sanders is almost decisively beaten (now Bloomberg has dropped out and is supporting Biden). And the thing is... Biden is a solution for people who have a good life, I don't mean outstanding prosperity, just a safe life with a reasonable income and who don't want the boat rocked. The thing is people like Trump or Sanders... they are revolutionaries... and revolutions mean death, blood, destruction, war, they mean innocent people lynched in the streets... chaos. How does this translate for the aforementioned people? It means their livelihood for which they worked all their life is about to be destroyed. Trump or Sanders are instability, they are danger.

Biden is the solution, because he is the familiar, they know him, he doesn't behave in random ways, with him they can trust that he won't start some random war because someone dissed him on Twitter, he is stable and predictable... which is good. And I can relate to this group. I was born in a working class family and now I'm doing well for the first time in my life. Destroying institutions like the EU or NATO would very likely mean I would have to return to poverty, maybe even be politically persecuted, as we would be forced by the Russian influence to return to corruption and dictatorship. How? Because people like Trump basically say: NATO is bad, we won't intervene in Europe, which tells Russia: invade, attack and enslave Europe. Do whatever you want with tens of millions of people! I have a good thing going... and someone like Trump, playing with the world based on his whims, is an existential threat to my well being. So I would just prefer stability and the old order. So Biden would be the solution of return to stability and safety.


----------



## Six (Oct 14, 2019)

I'd vote for Trump as a F- you to the establishment for suppressing the brilliant Yang, noble Gabbard and even the spineless Sanders - any of whom could have re-painted a debate stage with Trump's entrails in a tete a tete.


----------



## Glenda Gnome Starr (May 12, 2011)

Biden is not the solution. But he is also not Trump.
Trump has to go.
I plan on voting for my third-choice candidate, Bernie Sanders, in the April 28th primary (New York).
I intend to vote for Biden in the general election, if he is nominated.
But without enthusiasm.
And the vote is all he gets.
I am not all in with this.
I will not put any effort into his campaign.
I would have supported Inslee or Castro with a lot of energy and enthusiasm.
They would have made for change. And I think that they would have been effective.
I like Bernie Sanders. But I think that Jay Inslee and Julian Castro would have been able to implement their programs, but I'm not convinced that Bernie is able to do so.


----------



## jetser (Jan 6, 2016)

Strelnikov said:


> Well, it depends on what you want. I was talking earlier today (it's evening here) to a friend of mine and she was sad because Sanders is almost decisively beaten (now Bloomberg has dropped out and is supporting Biden). And the thing is... Biden is a solution for people who have a good life, I don't mean outstanding prosperity, just a safe life with a reasonable income and who don't want the boat rocked. The thing is people like Trump or Sanders... they are revolutionaries... and revolutions mean death, blood, destruction, war, they mean innocent people lynched in the streets... chaos. How does this translate for the aforementioned people? It means their livelihood for which they worked all their life is about to be destroyed. Trump or Sanders are instability, they are danger.
> 
> Biden is the solution, because he is the familiar, they know him, he doesn't behave in random ways, with him they can trust that he won't start some random war because someone dissed him on Twitter, he is stable and predictable... which is good. And I can relate to this group. I was born in a working class family and now I'm doing well for the first time in my life. Destroying institutions like the EU or NATO would very likely mean I would have to return to poverty, maybe even be politically persecuted, as we would be forced by the Russian influence to return to corruption and dictatorship. How? Because people like Trump basically say: NATO is bad, we won't intervene in Europe, which tells Russia: invade, attack and enslave Europe. Do whatever you want with tens of millions of people! I have a good thing going... and someone like Trump, playing with the world based on his whims, is an existential threat to my well being. So I would just prefer stability and the old order. So Biden would be the solution of return to stability and safety.


And I think Trump happened because too many revolutions failed (Obama, Arab spring...the list goes on and on), and when revolutions fail, reactionaries come.
Trump is a reactionary, not a revolutionary.

However, revolution needs to happen because society is in a different state now than it was when some of these policies worked.
Biden is just _biding_ time.
Either Trump or Bernie should win because that would ensure some bigger changes in the future.


----------



## Innocentia (Jun 30, 2019)

Strelnikov said:


> Well, it depends on what you want. I was talking earlier today (it's evening here) to a friend of mine and she was sad because Sanders is almost decisively beaten (now Bloomberg has dropped out and is supporting Biden). And the thing is... Biden is a solution for people who have a good life, I don't mean outstanding prosperity, just a safe life with a reasonable income and who don't want the boat rocked. The thing is people like Trump or Sanders... they are revolutionaries... and revolutions mean death, blood, destruction, war, they mean innocent people lynched in the streets... chaos. How does this translate for the aforementioned people? It means their livelihood for which they worked all their life is about to be destroyed. Trump or Sanders are instability, they are danger.
> 
> Biden is the solution, because he is the familiar, they know him, he doesn't behave in random ways, with him they can trust that he won't start some random war because someone dissed him on Twitter, he is stable and predictable... which is good. And I can relate to this group. I was born in a working class family and now I'm doing well for the first time in my life. Destroying institutions like the EU or NATO would very likely mean I would have to return to poverty, maybe even be politically persecuted, as we would be forced by the Russian influence to return to corruption and dictatorship. How? Because people like Trump basically say: NATO is bad, we won't intervene in Europe, which tells Russia: invade, attack and enslave Europe. Do whatever you want with tens of millions of people! I have a good thing going... and someone like Trump, playing with the world based on his whims, is an existential threat to my well being. So I would just prefer stability and the old order. So Biden would be the solution of return to stability and safety.


That's cool to see people making political commentary. I have some proposal to clarify a bit your vocabulary to have a speech which matches a bit more what's at play. You're not forced to adopt it.

The first one is to clarify what a revolution is. We have two forms of revolution, one is technological, the other is political. Here we speak of political revolutions. A revolution is at its core a rewriting of the speech of the people who preceded us, it's nothing more. Just a new justification for the actual order which was beginning to be unjustified, cause older speeches were simply obsolete. From this definition, which isn't as bloody as yours, Trump isn't revolutionary at all, and Bernie isn't a revolutionary either, well, for the most part.

What's important to notice, is that a revolution isn't a new order, it's the current order being differently justified, it leads to new dynamic which transforms the current order, but when a revolution happens, the order doesn't radicaly change. Basically, the forces which changes the society are already there, they're just waiting for a coherent justification so it propagates the actual localised changes to a bigger scale without fully loosing its coherence, so it has time to materialise itself before everyone go their own way. This is in no mean violent, cause I spoke of a set of dynamics which are already changing the society on a direction which is inclusivity, the inclusion of those actual dynamics into a justified position in the ever moving society we live in.

To have a display of violence, we require a tension: the proponents of the current justification of the actual order, and all the older ones, the ones which are due to be replaced by a revolution cause of their obsolescence, will fit that role. Now the possibility of a bloody display of violence is there. But if there were no proponents of old justifications, proponents of new justifications wouldn't make sense, basically there can't be revolutionaries without conservatives and reactionaries. As such, as the material order change in all its complexity, a distance between the speeches which either include the changes or exclude the changes grow bigger and bigger until it explodes, the violence.

We would like to judge both parties guilty of the violence, but the problem is that none actually really give a shit about them, we just want to live our own lives. But just living our own lives require to put our energy in the adaptation or the conservation of our position in society, and the more or less decency which comes with it. We all play at our level this little game, it doesn't really influence what is happening to a bigger scale, and it's impossible to rely upon all those individual behaviours. But our little game rarely destroy things, we rarely kill someone, or destroy a house, or leave our family, or our friends. Violence is basically going backward, so unless we destroy our possibilities or the possibilities of other to live decently, we go forward. To go backwards is to ultimately die, or to have our life destroyed before the actual end.

Societies always go forward until they don't, to justify all the little changes we and all the people around us are doing to make our life and the life of the ones after us, a bit more decent, is to rely first on the old speeches and then twist them so it fits what we're doing right now, not like our ancestors were doing before. And it comes a time were the old speeches simply can't keep up anymore, this is the time of revolution. And it's a good and necessary thing to do, or we become the proponents of an old justification for an order which doesn't exist anymore, as such we justify to destroy all those little things which made the life of the people a bit more decent, this the reactionary to the fascistic ways of transforming the world, because, as we all know, it was better before... Well nope, it wasn't. Conservative are just at the edge of being reactionary, they are trying to keep things as they were, fearful of the future.

The guilt of violence is mechanically on the right-wing, I'm not saying that the left is right on everything or even anything, we can't know now what is right and what isn't, unless we actually try. Cause like I said in a precedent post on this thread, we don't actually know what communism is, it has never been applied to the level of a nation, the fear of a future without state was impossible to imagine by the proponent of their so-called "communism", so they chose dictatorship. And Bernie is nothing like a communist by the way.

I'm not saying that right-wing people shouldn't say a thing by the way, I want them to actually express themselves on how they want to justify the increase of life decency of poorer people than them. What is their world view where people who are starving stop to starve. I want them to speak about the future of all the diversity we have within the societies they live in, and accross the societies of the world. Take any social identity and I want to hear what justifications you require so they have a place in this world and a decent life. Do that exercise on every social identities, and then we can speak. Cause that's an exercise we do on the left, not enough to my taste, but I would like everyone to join on this matter.

Biden is obviously a conservative, and Trump a reactionary, Bernie is on a edge between conservative and progressive politics. None of them are revolutionary, right-wing people are never revolutionary, they're counter-revolutionary, and unless there's a revolution, there can't be a counter-revolution.


----------



## unimportant (Feb 12, 2020)

Tulsi Gabbard is the smartest thing in politics EVER!!!

Anybody not voting for her can go jump off a bridge...

If I could vote on a candidate like that, I'd be campaigning for her.


----------



## jetser (Jan 6, 2016)

unimportant said:


> Tulsi Gabbard is the smartest thing in politics EVER!!!
> 
> Anybody not voting for her can go jump off a bridge...
> 
> If I could vote on a candidate like that, I'd be campaigning for her.


Poor thing. Is there anyone voting for her?


----------



## Glenda Gnome Starr (May 12, 2011)

unimportant said:


> Tulsi Gabbard is the smartest thing in politics EVER!!!
> 
> Anybody not voting for her can go jump off a bridge...
> 
> If I could vote on a candidate like that, I'd be campaigning for her.


There will be a lot of people jumping off of bridges. She has gotten almost no votes.


----------



## unimportant (Feb 12, 2020)

Glenda Gnome Starr said:


> There will be a lot of people jumping off of bridges. She has gotten almost no votes.


Yeah I know, sporadically I've followed some of those candidates (I never comment on politics, this IS the ONE exception). Tulsi Gabbard is just charming on a whole other level, her discourse is articulate and well thought out. She's an excellent orator and I don't see her as an unethical demagogue. I also think she has integrity.

The "jumping of bridges" was meant as a joke/cliché. I'm not proud of having written it, but I do recall the staunch militancy -and accompanying rhetoric- I've witnessed on other forums around election time, so my joke is innocuous in proportion...


----------



## The Dude (May 20, 2010)

Election 2020...Battle of the Racist, Sexist, and Despicable Dotards. 

I'd vote for Trump out of spite if/when Biden gets the nomination...if I go to vote.


----------



## DudeGuy (Aug 5, 2013)

The Dude said:


> Election 2020...Battle of the Racist, Sexist, and Despicable Dotards.
> 
> I'd vote for Trump out of spite if/when Biden gets the nomination...if I go to vote.


Bernie supporter? Because that pretty much confirms what everyone else thinks of you. How was Bernie going to beat Trump if he can't even beat Biden... or Clinton. 

 There's nothing progressive about helping Trump hurt people.


----------



## DudeGuy (Aug 5, 2013)

Innocentia said:


> Biden is obviously a conservative


He'll obviously be a socialist soon enough, oh about June, July. 











Biden is a democrat, get over yourself.


----------



## DudeGuy (Aug 5, 2013)

I voted Warren in the primary.


----------



## Innocentia (Jun 30, 2019)

DudeGuy said:


> He'll obviously be a socialist soon enough, oh about June, July.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


I'm not using the words of politicians when I want to make a comment on political issues as it would make no sense. I'm using a set of definition which have a coherent logic, so I can compare different situation will keeping the same model and don't require to change it everytime I'm speaking of a new country or historical situation.

A democrat would want a democracy, he doesn't, neither Bernie Sanders. I never heard from the party the "democrats" that they wanted to establish a democracy, they want to keep the current system of election and how the different power interact with eachother the same. This is called a representative republic, cause there's delegation of power of the people, thus a loss of sovereignity over their life to an elite. And secondly, there's public property, a republic.

A socialist has different definition and it's hard to use that term. Even if it was an equivalent to communism before, now it's used to describe when a capitalist-liberal representative republic (the usual politico-economical model of the western countries), use the public property to redistribute part of the profit made on their land, an application of the sovereignity of the state, not the sovereignity of the people, that would be a democracy. We have sometime the term of social-democrat for those people, but as said before unless they want a democracy, we shouldn't call them democrats. Secondly it masks that those "socialist" are liberal and want to maintain a controlled form of capitalism as well as a set of liberal value, like individualism. This isn't the socialist values we tend to attribute to communism. So I think it would be better to always point out that what we call now socialists are more than often liberal in their values and for a more controlled economy, so a more sovereign republic.

I sadly in a precedent comment made an error, pointing out that we had, in the western countries, mostly capitalist-conservative republican, ultra-capitalist-liberal republican and social-liberal republican. When I used the word conservative, I speak of the values, but actually on a political spectrum from right-wing to left-wing in relation to the old order, the current order and the order to come, they're reactionary as the value of the conservative have been replaced by the liberal values, which is the new conservative set of values. If we replace conservative by reactionary, and liberal by conservative, we get capitalist-reactionary republican, ultra-capitalist-conservative republican (because they tend to destroy the republic, we could question their republicanism by the way), and social-conservative republican. I mostly think Joe Biden as an ultra-capitalist-conservative, we could put him in the social-conservative republican set, but because I use a simplification of a political model, Bernie would be on the social-conservative republican part too, and I don't see them getting well together. It's a spectrum so, we do what we can, Bernie would still be a conservative by the way, he's on the edge of progressivism.

We could argue against my analysis, and consider that if we really attach ourselves to the history of politics in the U.S. that Bernie would be a progressive, cause the U.S. being a major dying empire, it's expected to only see all political speeches far more on the right than european countries, cause no politician would like to propose to lose their political and economical grasp on latin america, africa, arabic countries or europe. Which is something they'll have to do in the future. Because they can't imagine that, they're all very much on the right, but from here, we could try to think like an american and say that's something we can't question, with other stuff that american take as granted for eternity. Anything going more toward a progressive politic, immediately makes you progressive, cause we decided to not see the effect of the dying empire on the speeches of the politicians which would makes all of them more conservative if we looked at things on a bigger scale.

So we just have a problem of definition ^^.

P.S. I forgot, it has never been seen that people, as they gain power, they turn themselves more toward progressive politics. They are often barely able to apply the envisioned progressive part of their program, and tend to make a lot of compromise with the opposition, right-winger, so Biden being a socialist soon enough? That's a joke, like unless you have redscare, none in their sanity would say that, he's liberal all the way, and with all the racist things he said, I would even personally put him as a reactionary.


----------



## contradictionary (Apr 1, 2018)

Bernie will lose, again. Biden will have Hillary-ous as VP, to replace him later when he must go out from dementia and pardon all his Ukrainian dark affair.

Mrs. President, at last.

Or so she thought because unfortunately, orangeman bad will crush that wettest dream. 



_Sent sans PC_


----------



## DudeGuy (Aug 5, 2013)

Innocentia said:


> That's a joke


Chill.


----------



## Innocentia (Jun 30, 2019)

DudeGuy said:


> Chill.


??? Yeah, it is! Why?


----------



## Astroglorious (Apr 13, 2020)

I have a slight preference for Trump but probably not enough for me to vote for him if I were an American. I find most of his policies awful. Even though, politics aside, I find the guy hilarious and am a big admirer of his trolling skills.

And Biden clearly has dementia. A vote for him would pretty much be a vote for whoever he picks as his VP.


----------



## Lakigigar (Jan 4, 2016)

In 2024, i will support Yang.


----------



## BroNerd (Nov 27, 2010)

I'm waiting out on seeing who Biden picks as his VP.
That's going to be the real president. 
Biden is deteriorating and those close to him know that better than anyone else.
However, I know that the Democrats know that. 
This isn't a pro-Biden vote. It's an anti-Trump vote. Hate to say it but that's the reality of the situation.


----------



## Schizoid (Jan 31, 2015)

I'm a foreigner and I would vote for Donald Trump, definitely. I know that Trump isn't the most likeable person, but he is the only one who is able to bring about positive changes to the USA. 

Joe Biden has a weak personality, he reminds me of Obama, and if he's a president, he wouldn't be able to bring much positive changes to the USA. Trump actually managed to create a lot more jobs as compared to Obama. An average of 17, 700 new jobs were created under Obama per month, while an average of 17, 822 new jobs were created under Trump per month. The state's overall economic output under Obama only rose 17.25 percent, while the overall economic output under Trump is up between 17.4 percent to 17.9 per cent. The state's average hourly pay under Obama is only a 7.8 percent increase, while the hourly wage has a 9.6 percent increase under Trump. 
Joe Biden has the same weak personality as Obama, and if he becomes the president, this is how the economy in USA would look like. It would be very similar to the time when Obama was the president, there would be fewer new jobs being created, lower overall economic output, lower hourly pay etc. 

If you want to transform the USA into a much better place, you will need someone who is strong and opinionated and able to make decisions easily such as Donald Trump to bring about those positive changes. 
If a president has a weak personality, such as Joe Biden and Obama, the USA would be in huge disaster and the unemployment rate would all start to skyrocket, lol.


----------



## jetser (Jan 6, 2016)

Lakigigar said:


> If i had a gun to my head, and i'd to follow my heart and/or gut, i would vote for Trump. If i had to a gun to my head, and i would follow my rationale, i would likely vote Biden. I've said on many fora i would've voted Biden, but yeah i could tell that, and go to the voting box (pretending corona doesn't exist or will not have an influence on election day), and vote for the other candidate. That's how unsure i am about this match-up. The benefit of voting Trump is that it's still a vote against the system and a "fuck it" vote. It's not like those people care about us anyway. What is Biden going to do for students. What is Trump going to do for them. Literally nothing. They only care about theirselves.


Exactly. Trump is a thrust to the system. Vote him if you wanna get free. Vote Biden if you want nothing to be changed at all.


----------



## Lakigigar (Jan 4, 2016)

jetser said:


> My dad called the French national soccer team "******" and he freaked out whenever he saw a woman driving a car.
> 
> However he was a good man. He gave disproportionately good raises to his workers (he was an ESTP after all) and voted left all the time.
> 
> ...


Yes i sometimes think that those people just don't know better. They're not bad people, but are often being raised as racist, or have disproportioned views around them, and they certainly have a point, because of all criminals a large disproportionely number are criminals. Of all those getting social benefits, it's disproportionally immigrants, like i've been in a psychiatric hospital, meeting someone and he told me he's waiting for the social housing system for a house to pop up where he could live in and all 14 people ahead of him had surnames that indicated that they were immigrants. Than there is something wrong about your system. My view is that you can't take care of poverty if you import a disproportionally large amount of immigrants, how sad it is is for them in their country. On the other hand, i believe immigrants should always have free education and free healthcare, because that's a human right.

I have nothing against immigration, but I do have problems with the current *MASS* IMMIGRATION. You have to make sure a country stays stable, and right now with all those terrorist attacks, we don't know anymore who we import. It's so easy to abuse the system. That's why a large amount of the population suddenly turned racist. I can understand them, but it's often fake news or abused to win votes. Is Trump a racist. I don't think so. Does he use racist rhetoric to win over voters? Yes certainly.

If i was a politician, i would avoid talking about immigration or say things i don't believe necessarily in if forced too, because i'm more concerned with other issues.

What i do believe in, is that we need to be tougher on crime, and sent immigrants back home if they commit a huge crime or repeated crimes. (not drug-related crimes, because those are not crimes at all in my belief).

And UBI could replace a lot of our social welfare system, by just giving everyone 1000 euros. What you do with it, is your choice, but if you choose not to work at all, you have to live with those 1000 euros, and than it's your choice to profit from society or contribute and earn a little bit of extra money and afford something. I'm disabled and sick, so working is not really an option, even though i try to finish my studies, but this half year will be a disaster because of COVID-19. I feel like i profit sometimes from society though, but if everyone gets those 1000 euros (and i could certainly live from it). I don't need more, than things are solved, and that could replace my disability income or sickness income, and don't need to justify it anymore. If people are overstressed, or have a burn-out or want a different career, they could also rely on those 1000 euros to reboot and restart, so that's why i believe in it. I would love to work though, but i have no job opportunities, except for some shit jobs, and have fears i have to overcome.


----------



## Lakigigar (Jan 4, 2016)

The problem is also, it's impossible to give 8 billion people a job, because there are no 8 billion USEFUL jobs, unless you invent jobs for the sake of inventing jobs. And with the upcoming automatisation of our society where cashiers and all will be obsolete, work should be an option. Because right now it's basically slavery. If you don't work, you die because of lack of food, housing and whatsoever. And it's bad for the climate, because we overproduce things, throw away things at a high rate, and we overconsume, buying things we don't need at all (i am guilty to that as well, how many things did i buy that i will never ever use in my life. A LOT). And I also believe people shouldn't work until their 70th or 80th like we are going to have to do. The point is, make the work week more flexible so that people who want to work part-time can work part-time, like older people who are too exhausted or tired or unfit to work an entire work week, but still want to work to not lose grisp on society.


----------



## Lakigigar (Jan 4, 2016)

jetser said:


> Exactly. Trump is a thrust to the system. Vote him if you wanna get free. Vote Biden if you want nothing to be changed at all.


Yes i could certainly be a silent Trump voter, like saying on internet fora (politics internet fora), i support Biden and would vote for him, like i do now. And than go to the voting box, and because I make decisions according to feelings, change my opinion and vote for Trump. Than i would be one of those "silent Trump voters". Even though i disapprove him a lot. I'm more certain how i would vote downballot, and that's Democratic. I would also have voted Democratic in almost every state (i know a lot about senate races) in the 2018 midterms.

And honestly i wouldn't vote ever for a Republican. Like it was Mike Pence who would run against Joe Biden. I would CERTAINLY turn out and vote Biden instead of Pence. Trump has just that "something" few people have. That's why I think it's going to be a close race, while if a different Republican run i would've voted for Biden.

Few exceptions like Former Ohio governor Kasich vs Biden, or Missouri senator Hawley vs Biden or Florida governor DeSantis vs Biden, than i would probably vote Republican as well.


----------



## jetser (Jan 6, 2016)

Lakigigar said:


> Yes i could certainly be a silent Trump voter, like saying on internet fora (politics internet fora), i support Biden and would vote for him, like i do now. And than go to the voting box, and because I make decisions according to feelings, change my opinion and vote for Trump. Than i would be one of those "silent Trump voters". Even though i disapprove him a lot. I'm more certain how i would vote downballot, and that's Democratic. I would also have voted Democratic in almost every state (i know a lot about senate races) in the 2018 midterms.
> 
> And honestly i wouldn't vote ever for a Republican. Like it was Mike Pence who would run against Joe Biden. I would CERTAINLY turn out and vote Biden instead of Pence. Trump has just that "something" few people have. That's why I think it's going to be a close race, while if a different Republican run i would've voted for Biden.
> 
> Few exceptions like Former Ohio governor Kasich vs Biden, or Missouri senator Hawley vs Biden or Florida governor DeSantis vs Biden, than i would probably vote Republican as well.


Trump is like The Joker. You want him to win in the end? Probably not.
But you want him to give the protagonist a good lesson.


----------



## Lakigigar (Jan 4, 2016)

jetser said:


> Trump is like The Joker. You want him to win in the end? Probably not.
> But you want him to give the protagonist a good lesson.


Haha, i like the Joker actually, but you're right, and that's probably due to that amazing acting performance, arguably the best acting performance in the history of popular movies.


----------



## BroNerd (Nov 27, 2010)

Ironically, I think the pandemic could increase Trump’s chances of winning this year's election. Trump is looking like the pro-freedom candidate who is for the middle class. While the Democrats seem out of touch with the concerns people have with the lockdown. 

I think Biden will still likely win the popular vote but Trump will take most of the swing states and get a second term. If the “red states” recover faster than the “blue states” economically - Trump will be sure to remind people of that. This is a big if though. If coronavirus cases spike in states that reopened too quickly - then that will NOT be in Trump’s favor and make a win easier for the Democrats with a “See, we told you”. Time will tell. 

The issue though is that the Democratic establishment will have failed again to relate to typical Americans unlike Trump. And honestly, Biden is irrelevant. I think Bernie Sanders would have been the better candidate. I really do. Bernie knows how to appeal to people in a non-elitist way.. Hillary’s elitism cost her big time in 2016.


----------



## Steelight (Mar 15, 2017)

NT - Trump

I voted for Trump as the lesser of two evils, though I will admit, the thing I liked about him most was not his policies. It was the fact that he talks like a human, and not a politician, and the fact that he's not a career politician. I have more trust in a non-politician who talks like an idiot sometimes, than a smart-sounding politician who's known nothing else for most of her life. He also pissed off all the right people for all the right reasons.


I was actually surprisingly impressed with most of Trump's presidency. I expected it to be another Obama/Bush (I hated both of them). I don't agree with everything he did by a long shot, but he's done more good for the working class than any president in my lifetime except MAYBE Bill Clinton....MAYBE. And every non-biased poll I've seen on that question shows a majority of people's lives in the U.S. being better under Trump than under Obama, even those who hate Trump will SOMETIMES admit that.


Though he has disappointed me at times, and will surely do so in the future, I'll enthusiastically vote for him again, whereas I grudgingly did it in 2016. But I'll be especially glad to do so, considering his opponent is someone who's showing signs of dementia and seems to be rapidly getting worse.

I'm actually kind of disappointed with the democrats for not having a higher turnout for Bernie. Although I think Bernie would actually be worse for the country than Biden, I was looking forward to Bernie upsetting the democrat establishment, the same way Trump did with the GOP establishment in the last race, although the GOP has gladly accepted him since then. Honestly, I just hate political parties and enjoy seeing them turned on their heads, But unless political parties are abolished, I think we're going to continue to have greater and greater division and less critical thinking over time.


----------



## contradictionary (Apr 1, 2018)

Nah, this time it would never be a close call at all. It would be a bloodbath as in Tory vs Labor - Part 2.


----------



## Ocean Helm (Aug 25, 2016)

Trump winning isn't structurally changing much of anything for the better, but he is changing significant things for the worse. I can get how suckers might have voted for him in 2016 to get some kind of positive structural change but now we have had a chance to put the hypothesis to the test and what do we have? It's like having a cockroach infestation and paying someone to get rid of the cockroaches only for them to bring over 5 buckets of cockroaches, dump them in your house after taking your money, and then leave. And then you respond by calling them up again and giving them more money. We've seen what he is and if you can't put it together at this point then I don't know what there is to even say.

I will technically send a message by voting Green (my vote doesn't matter) because Biden represents pretty much everything wrong with Democratic politics, but I would expect his net results, both for his current term and what he sets up structurally for the future, to be significantly better than the narcissist moron in there now.


----------



## strawberryLola (Sep 19, 2010)

Neither. Both sides suck. They're BOTH a bunch of pretentious pricks anyway.

I'm sticking back to Green Party. Why can't people vote Green already?? It's not like we're doomed to a pathetic 2-party system forever... seriously come on!! They're both owned by the same owners.

(but, politics suck in general- wouldn't be surprised when another Koch panzy oligarch steps in and ruins that party, also). Narcissists are ruining the planet!!


----------



## Lakigigar (Jan 4, 2016)

Still on the fence... Biden and Trump. are both objectively bad candidates. I think i would follow my heart and still vote for Trump if i was an American. I feel unsatisfied by Joe Biden, and he lacks vision. Trump is a fuck you vote for the establishment, and i'm sure other presidents would have done a terrible job keeping the coronavirus under control.


----------



## Lakigigar (Jan 4, 2016)

I'd lean Trump but could go either way! I would vote Democratic downballot


----------



## tanstaafl28 (Sep 10, 2012)

I'm pinching my nose when I pick Biden. I'm seriously concerned that the United States won't survive another 4 years of Trump.


----------



## SpiritEssence (Sep 23, 2020)

Biden, but it's more about voting against Trump than for Biden, at least for me. I mean to me narcissistic businessmen are exactly who have caused the most ills for the average person since 1776. People who dream of conquest, but don't know how to or care to rule, because they don't like people and believe in sympathy. The fact that Trump stood in a graveyard filled with dead soldiers and called them losers, not able to understand what was in it for them, tells me everything I need to know about him. He's literally incapable of doing something that isn't selfish.


----------



## moonpixie (Dec 14, 2012)

Biden. Trump is a parasite.


----------



## Rant Casey (Oct 8, 2020)

I believe that objectively Trump is better than Biden for the simple fact that Biden is a war exporting imperialist with quite the track record of foreign regime change. That and Biden has alzheimers.

With that being said, I don't like Trump either even though I voted for him in 2016. I'm sitting this election out; they can both get fucked.


----------



## Kitsune Love (Jul 8, 2014)

Lakigigar said:


> Who would you vote for?
> 
> (hypothetically, foreigners are allowed to vote too)


I panicked for a split second when I saw the word foreigner.
Then you said it was ok.


----------



## 17041704 (May 28, 2020)

trump for lol


----------



## shameless (Apr 21, 2014)

Neither of those dumb fucken parties and their ‘leaders’

I vote for sanity which neither party represents.


----------

