2020 US Presidential Election

[Tanni]

People are going to vote for Kayne just to "own the libs."

Not saying he's going to win, but he'd get some votes.

But why, when they can vote Trump to own the libs? In fact, I would be more worried about the liberals voting Kanye to own Trump! It's so weird ... who is he supposed to appeal to?

It's fascinating -- and I very much hope the trend of celebrity politicians doesn't catch on over here!

 

[FGG]

I grew up with epidemiologists and biostatisticians. Super smart, nerdy, good at maths and left wing politics (social politics).
It was the same for the founders of the Manhattan project and the folks who won World War 2. They were then pursued as marxists and communists for decades because of McCarthy and uninformed and uneducated far right in the US.
Is what it is.

Many of the scientists on the Manhattan project were Jews and were hounded and persecuted wrongly, to be Bolsheviks and Communist sympathizers. That's how we thanked our scientists. A lot of the folks involved from hearing regeneration are Jews, Indians and Asians. I do hope the government doesn't turn on these folks too. I know they are sending foreign students in mass home now. Is that not xenophobia. Many of these folks are from India and China pursuing PhDs and involved in medical research. How does exiling them benefit America financially or intellectually?

Smart people on many sides can argue about which economic policies favor innovation but it is crystal clear that at least socially liberal policies favor innovation.

 

[Zugzug]

Have you been to rural America? "Dumps" could very much describe whole swaths of Appalachia. Try looking at the meth map of the US sometime, too.

To expound on this, the entire country is becoming more third world thanks to our third world type income structure where all the resources go to the top 1%. Yes our cities are becoming dumps but so are our small towns.

View attachment 39748

Why are Scandinavian cities very much not slums or dumps? They are way more liberal than the US.

It's sad to me how many people engage in cognitive dissonance and tell themselves that the top 1% earned it. I say cognitive dissonance because that's the only way to explain being jealous of the income of a scientist. It's like, yes, a lot of wealthy people worked hard and deserve to be rich. But so rich that they could shovel cash into a bonfire every night and have it be an accounting error? I don't fully agree with Bernie on a lot of things, but this graphic (and the message around it) should be considered a part of an economic crisis. This is not okay.

 

[Watasha]

Smart people on many sides can argue about which economic policies favor innovation but it is crystal clear that at least socially liberal policies favor innovation.

Which socially liberal policies favor innovation? Genuinely curious what you mean here.

 

[PeteJ]

Why are Scandinavian cities very much not slums or dumps? They are way more liberal than the US.

You're so full of it. Malmö is a slum as far as cities in Scandinavia go. Parts of Stockholm are pretty bad. Your meth areas are because of leftism/liberalism.

https://www.expressen.se/nyheter/lo...ri--odetomten-som-blev-sveriges-storsta-slum/

https://quillette.com/2019/06/11/its-time-for-sweden-to-admit-explosions-are-a-national-emergency/

The areas deteriorate with liberalism/leftism.

 

[Christiaan]

Have you been to rural America? "Dumps" could very much describe whole swaths of Appalachia. Try looking at the meth map of the US sometime, too.

To expound on this, the entire country is becoming more third world thanks to our third world type income structure where all the resources go to the top 1%. Yes our cities are becoming dumps but so are our small towns.

View attachment 39748

Why are Scandinavian cities very much not slums or dumps? They are way more liberal than the US.

These stats are unfortunately not exclusive to America. It is also visible in other countries in Europe in the last 20/30 years. A lot of European countries copied the Anglo-American free market model based on trickle down economics, a policy even adopted by social democratic and centrist parties.

In theory, this concepts entails lower taxes for the rich and big companies, which would lead to more spending, more hiring of people in lower classes, higher wages, and consequently leads to higher welfare for everyone. And it worked, up to a point. Welfare has indeed increased in the first years of implementation of free market economics but slowly diminished in recent years.

In recent years, the rich and big companies have accumulated more power and influence than ever before. A lot of rich people have found judicial routes via expensive (international) law firms (e.g. Mossack Fonseca) to bank their money in a safe (tax) haven, without paying almost any dime in taxes. A luxury that average Joe or Jane cannot afford. Another thing is that big companies threaten governments by taking their production and workers elsewhere if they have to pay their fair share in taxes, like Shell (big oil concern) and Unilever (produces almost everything you can think of) in my country. Small grocers, blue collar workers, teachers & others are paying their fair share to help finance public transport, schools and hospitals, whereas most big corporations want to enjoy the fruits of their labours. Because of all this, it makes it pretty hard for a government to use enough taxpayer money to finance basic public needs.

And yet, despite the decrease in welfare here and in America for the ordinary folk, lots of people are still voting for politicians that protect this model.

 

[Daniel Lion]

It's sad to me how many people engage in cognitive dissonance and tell themselves that the top 1% earned it. I say cognitive dissonance because that's the only way to explain being jealous of the income of a scientist. It's like, yes, a lot of wealthy people worked hard and deserve to be rich. But so rich that they could shovel cash into a bonfire every night and have it be an accounting error? I don't fully agree with Bernie on a lot of things, but this graphic (and the message around it) should be considered a part of an economic crisis. This is not okay.

The Billionaire club in the US has been minting money during COVID-19. Amazon is just one of the most ludicrous examples.

 

[Daniel Lion]

You're so full of it. Malmö is a slum as far as cities in Scandinavia go. Parts of Stockholm are pretty bad. Your meth areas are because of leftism/liberalism.

https://www.expressen.se/nyheter/lo...ri--odetomten-som-blev-sveriges-storsta-slum/

https://quillette.com/2019/06/11/its-time-for-sweden-to-admit-explosions-are-a-national-emergency/

The areas deteriorate with liberalism/leftism.

No man,
Meth is not a drug of choice for liberals... I'd like to think they prefer Marijuana, some nice red wine, and a goat cheese salad with walnuts. Please, please, please don't dump Meth on the left.

 

[PeteJ]

No man,
Meth is not a drug of choice for liberals... I'd like to think they prefer Marijuana, some nice red wine, and a goat cheese salad with walnuts. Please, please, please don't dump Meth on the left.

You really have a screw loose.

 

[PeteJ]

Which socially liberal policies favor innovation? Genuinely curious what you mean here.

Just liberals being stupid as usual.

 

[PeteJ]

These stats are unfortunately not exclusive to America. It is also visible in other countries in Europe in the last 20/30 years. A lot of European countries copied the Anglo-American free market model based on trickle down economics, a policy even adopted by social democratic and centrist parties.

In theory, this concepts entails lower taxes for the rich and big companies, which would lead to more spending, more hiring of people in lower classes, higher wages, and consequently leads to higher welfare for everyone. And it worked, up to a point. Welfare has indeed increased in the first years of implementation of free market economics but slowly diminished in recent years.

In recent years, the rich and big companies have accumulated more power and influence than ever before. A lot of rich people have found judicial routes via expensive (international) law firms (e.g. Mossack Fonseca) to bank their money in a safe (tax) haven, without paying almost any dime in taxes. A luxury that average Joe or Jane cannot afford. Another thing is that big companies threaten governments by taking their production and workers elsewhere if they have to pay their fair share in taxes, like Shell (big oil concern) and Unilever (produces almost everything you can think of) in my country. Small grocers, blue collar workers, teachers & others are paying their fair share to help finance public transport, schools and hospitals, whereas most big corporations want to enjoy the fruits of their labours. Because of all this, it makes it pretty hard for a government to use enough taxpayer money to finance basic public needs.

And yet, despite the decrease in welfare here and in America for the ordinary folk, lots of people are still voting for politicians that protect this model.

Thanks to LEFT WING politicians and neocons. Oh, your narrative is destroyed again.

You hypocrites are so pathetic.

 

[FGG]

Which socially liberal policies favor innovation? Genuinely curious what you mean here.

Diversity favors innovation. You recruit talent in areas people want to live and if you are gay, a minority, an immigrant etc you favor living in places where you have equality.

They are also in areas that favor greater access to higher education.

Here is a list of biotech hubs in the US. None of them are in places like Alabama, for instance:

https://www.genengnews.com/a-lists/top-10-u-s-biopharma-clusters-6/

 

[FGG]

You're so full of it. Malmö is a slum as far as cities in Scandinavia go. Parts of Stockholm are pretty bad. Your meth areas are because of leftism/liberalism.

https://www.expressen.se/nyheter/lo...ri--odetomten-som-blev-sveriges-storsta-slum/

https://quillette.com/2019/06/11/its-time-for-sweden-to-admit-explosions-are-a-national-emergency/

The areas deteriorate with liberalism/leftism.

None of Appalachia is liberal or becoming liberal.

I know liberals are an all powerful boogie man to you but you should maybe go there to see it for your own eyes sometime when the travel restrictions expire.

The entire US is falling apart and it has everything to do with income inequality and not liberalism.

In fact, the rural areas (more conservative) are falling even further behind:

https://eig.org/dci

 

[FGG]

These stats are unfortunately not exclusive to America. It is also visible in other countries in Europe in the last 20/30 years. A lot of European countries copied the Anglo-American free market model based on trickle down economics, a policy even adopted by social democratic and centrist parties.

In theory, this concepts entails lower taxes for the rich and big companies, which would lead to more spending, more hiring of people in lower classes, higher wages, and consequently leads to higher welfare for everyone. And it worked, up to a point. Welfare has indeed increased in the first years of implementation of free market economics but slowly diminished in recent years.

In recent years, the rich and big companies have accumulated more power and influence than ever before. A lot of rich people have found judicial routes via expensive (international) law firms (e.g. Mossack Fonseca) to bank their money in a safe (tax) haven, without paying almost any dime in taxes. A luxury that average Joe or Jane cannot afford. Another thing is that big companies threaten governments by taking their production and workers elsewhere if they have to pay their fair share in taxes, like Shell (big oil concern) and Unilever (produces almost everything you can think of) in my country. Small grocers, blue collar workers, teachers & others are paying their fair share to help finance public transport, schools and hospitals, whereas most big corporations want to enjoy the fruits of their labours. Because of all this, it makes it pretty hard for a government to use enough taxpayer money to finance basic public needs.

And yet, despite the decrease in welfare here and in America for the ordinary folk, lots of people are still voting for politicians that protect this model.

Poor rural people vote against their own interest because they are told to blame other poor people (minorities) and not the people at the top fleecing them. It's disgusting honestly.

 

[Tanni]

Guys, it's entirely up to everyone what they want to do, and I know I'm going to be the recipient of a lot of very personal insults and abuse for saying this, but I would really encourage everyone to stop engaging with a certain member on this particular thread.

The insults have become really personal and nasty, and completely unwarranted as everyone has been really respectful in their responses. It's not about left vs right (my entire family are UKIP voters, and it's a pretty boring echo chamber if we all have the same opinions) -- it's about being respectful of other people's views. Some people are incapable of that.

If this is an inappropriate post, please delete -- I don't want to look like I'm censoring anyone. I can just see from experience how it is going to descend, and as tempting as it is to attempt to change someone's mind, you can't unless it's already open.

 

[PeteJ]

None of Appalachia is liberal or becoming liberal.

I know liberals are an all powerful boogie man to you but you should maybe go there to see it for your own eyes sometime when the travel restrictions expire.

The entire US is falling apart and it has everything to do with income inequality and not liberalism.

In fact, the rural areas (more conservative) are falling even further behind:

https://eig.org/dci

It is liberalism and mainstream. California is a dump. Most urban cities are in decay and have had Democrat mayor and governors.

I don't care about your claim of conservatives. They are the same now as I already said to you. I don't support the 1% but that is not because of right wingers. Most of them don't support the 1% and we all condemn the wealth gap. That is a result of governments being in league with big business and bankers. This situation exists with all your leftist governments particularly throughout Europe as even your buddy Christian conceded.

 

[FGG]

Guys, it's entirely up to everyone what they want to do, and I know I'm going to be the recipient of a lot of very personal insults and abuse for saying this, but I would really encourage everyone to stop engaging with a certain member on this particular thread.

The insults have become really personal and nasty, and completely unwarranted as everyone has been really respectful in their responses. It's not about left vs right (my entire family are UKIP voters, and it's a pretty boring echo chamber if we all have the same opinions) -- it's about being respectful of other people's views. Some people are incapable of that.

If this is an inappropriate post, please delete -- I don't want to look like I'm censoring anyone. I can just see from experience how it is going to descend, and as tempting as it is to attempt to change someone's mind, you can't unless it's already open.

I was sort of morbidly curious to see how far the liberal boogie-man blame game went. Like it was starting to be parody worthy:

Food poisoning? Liberals
Hard to open packaging? Liberals
Traffic jams? Liberals
Tom Brady being traded to the Bucs and Cam Newton being traded to the Patriots? Liberals

But yeah, I will stop responding again. I don't believe in censorship except voluntary self censorship and I can stop encouraging the disparaging dialogue with responses.

 

[Christiaan]

Poor rural people vote against their own interest because they are told to blame other poor people (minorities) and not the people at the top fleecing them. It's disgusting honestly.

That particularly hits the core @FGG. Here it is also true that in rural areas a considerable amount of people vote for far right parties because they 've been told that they are the only ones that will protect them against foreign influx (despite that there are almost no foreigners living in rural areas), even if all other things considered goes against their interests. For instance, We have a new right wing party (Forum voor Democracy party, led by Thierry Baudet) with considerable support in rural areas like the province of Groningen, which is rich in natural gas. Sadly enough it's the same party that actually wants to further exploit the natural gas fields, which caused a lot of havoc in the province in the past. A lot of houses are badly damaged due to earthquakes by gas exploitation and most people are just fed up about it. Still, it won't change people's mind by voting for this party. It's quite astonishing really.

 

[FGG]

That particularly hits the core @FGG. Here it is also true that in rural areas a considerable amount of people vote for far right parties because they 've been told that they are the only ones that will protect them against foreign influx (despite that there are almost no foreigners living in rural areas), even if all other things considered goes against their interests. For instance, We have a new right wing party (Forum voor Democracy party, led by Thierry Baudet) with considerable support in rural areas like the province of Groningen. Sadly enough it's the same party that actually wants to further exploit the natural gas fields, which caused a lot of havoc in the province. A lot of houses are badly damaged due to earthquakes by gas exploitation and most people are just fed up about it. Still, it won't change people's mind by voting for this party. It's quite astonishing.

Isn't it interesting that people who actually live around and regularly interact with minorities (i.e. people who live in big, diverse cities) are less racist? It's almost like living in diverse areas shows you how people have more in common than not.

Eastern Washington and the pan handle of Idaho are known for white supremacy groups and almost everyone there is white and Christian. They don't interact at all with the groups they hate so it is easier to never question their assumptions.

 

[Watasha]

Diversity favors innovation. You recruit talent in areas people want to live and if you are gay, a minority, an immigrant etc you favor living in places where you have equality.

They are also in areas that favor greater access to higher education.

Here is a list of biotech hubs in the US. None of them are in places like Alabama, for instance:

https://www.genengnews.com/a-lists/top-10-u-s-biopharma-clusters-6/

And "classically liberal" (which are in no way shape or form modern liberal) policies (which are now called conservative, free-market, libertarian) get no credit for this? These hubs of innovation would have no chance without the power, wealth, and resources made available by free and open societies brought on by free-market capitalism, property rights, etc. The advancement of the human race in the last 250 years is due to these principles, not diversity quotas at research institutions. I'm not going to disagree that those aren't helpful, because I believe diversity of thought is a wonderful thing, but to assert that it's modern day liberalism that is responsible for innovation and not the fruits of free-market capitalism and competition that it brings leaves out a glaring omission.

 

[FGG]

And "classically liberal" (which are in no way shape or form modern liberal) policies (which are now called conservative, free-market, libertarian) get no credit for this? These hubs of innovation would have no chance without the power, wealth, and resources made available by free and open societies brought on by free-market capitalism, property rights, etc. The advancement of the human race in the last 250 years is due to these principles, not diversity quotas at research institutions. I'm not going to disagree that those aren't helpful, because I believe diversity of thought is a wonderful thing, but to assert that it's modern day liberalism that is responsible for innovation and not the fruits of free-market capitalism and competition that it brings leaves out a glaring omission.

There is no omission. I said previously that for innovation you do need a balance of free market and government assisted research. So the free market is part of the equation. Hence the preference for Scandinavian socialism and not China.

Without government funded basic research, though, we wouldn't understand the structure and physiology of the cochlea (decades in the making) enough for private biotech to then swoop in with pre-clinical and clinical drugs. As I have said you need both. Like it or not, government funded research is a necessary part of the equation just like biotech venture capital is.

Glad to see that you agree that diversity is part of the equation for innovation, though. Whether you want to credit modern liberalism or not for that, we need policies that encourage it.

 

[PeteJ]

And "classically liberal" (which are in no way shape or form modern liberal) policies (which are now called conservative, free-market, libertarian) get no credit for this? These hubs of innovation would have no chance without the power, wealth, and resources made available by free and open societies brought on by free-market capitalism, property rights, etc. The advancement of the human race in the last 250 years is due to these principles, not diversity quotas at research institutions. I'm not going to disagree that those aren't helpful, because I believe diversity of thought is a wonderful thing, but to assert that it's modern day liberalism that is responsible for innovation and not the fruits of free-market capitalism and competition that it brings leaves out a glaring omission.

The people so into diversity passed through the indoctrination and re-education camps.

FGG omitted the crime and eventual societal decay too. Typical liberal lies and BS.

 

[PeteJ]

That particularly hits the core @FGG. Here it is also true that in rural areas a considerable amount of people vote for far right parties because they 've been told that they are the only ones that will protect them against foreign influx (despite that there are almost no foreigners living in rural areas), even if all other things considered goes against their interests. For instance, We have a new right wing party (Forum voor Democracy party, led by Thierry Baudet) with considerable support in rural areas like the province of Groningen, which is rich in natural gas. Sadly enough it's the same party that actually wants to further exploit the natural gas fields, which caused a lot of havoc in the province in the past. A lot of houses are badly damaged due to earthquakes by gas exploitation and most people are just fed up about it. Still, it won't change people's mind by voting for this party. It's quite astonishing really.

Not really when they have no choice.

 

[PeteJ]

I was sort of morbidly curious to see how far the liberal boogie-man blame game went. Like it was starting to be parody worthy:

Food poisoning? Liberals
Hard to open packaging? Liberals
Traffic jams? Liberals
Tom Brady being traded to the Bucs and Cam Newton being traded to the Patriots? Liberals

But yeah, I will stop responding again. I don't believe in censorship except voluntary self censorship and I can stop encouraging the disparaging dialogue with responses.

I think you've been borrowing from Daniel Lion's medicine cabinet.

 

[PeteJ]

What I am told here: Researchers are liberals. Vast majority of governments and health industries are run by liberals.

Observation: Research (and overall healthcare!) treatments are virtually non-existent for tinnitus/hyperacusis/pain. Great argument, you have there.

 

[Christiaan]

Isn't it interesting that people who actually live around and regularly interact with minorities (i.e. people who live in big, diverse cities) are less racist? It's almost like living in diverse areas shows you how people have more in common than not.

Eastern Washington and the pan handle of Idaho are known for white supremacy groups and almost everyone there is white and Christian. They don't interact at all with the groups they hate so it is easier to never question their assumptions.

Yep, that's certainly the case in most big 'n' diverse cities. There is a clearcut divide between the rural area/small towns vs. medium and bigger cities. Immigration issue is very minor in cities like Amsterdam. It's more about class & general communal issues, like keeping housing affordable (you need to be almost rich to own a house in the capital), accessible education, investment in cleaner energy and public transport. In general, the liberal and progressive parties own the big cities.

It's astonishing that you have those groups, in this freaking era! At least I'm glad we don't have these out and about extreme right wing organisations provoking white supremacy in the streets. Fascism is still fresh in our minds here, so open rallies are almost always repressed when these kind of groups want to openly show their hatred with pride. Sadly that's different for you guys with a president who is openly fuelling fear and division, legitimising those RW groups like Proud Boys and Unite the Right.

 

[PeteJ]

I am just saying the truth and all you leftists cherry-pick what you respond to anyway. Not responding anymore? No loss.

'Still didn't have any response or rebuttal to the fact that healthcare and research is in a woeful state despite leftist governments in power in most of the world, Western world definitely.

Also, evaded other claims and arguments such as Democrat-funding of BLM and its Marxist connections to name one more example. But, over the top sarcasm and cynicism on ridiculous inaccurate assertions I never made or other irrational critiques aren't going to make me miss any replies. This wasn't much of a "discussion" to begin with.

Carry on with the group think. I think there's been a lag with listing what Trump's done lately.

 

[Watasha]

There is no omission. I said previously that for innovation you do need a balance of free market and government assisted research. So the free market is part of the equation. Hence the preference for Scandinavian socialism and not China.

Scandinavian socialism is a myth. A quote from former prime minister of Denmark:

"I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy."

 

[FGG]

Scandinavian socialism is a myth. A quote from former prime minister of Denmark:

"I know that some people in the US associate the Nordic model with some sort of socialism. Therefore I would like to make one thing clear. Denmark is far from a socialist planned economy. Denmark is a market economy."

It's technically "democratic socialism" which is probably ideal.

 

[PeteJ]

Liberal insanity:
https://thepostmillennial.com/city-of-seattle-diversity-training-sessions

https://www.takimag.com/article/what-black-lives-matter-says-about-white-people/

https://www.insider.com/georgia-sto...e-carving-armed-black-protesters-video-2020-7

On and on....