Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 318: Markey Matchup

(+) Yeah! (+)

Like, I'm not denying that perhaps Joe Biden, in the twelve years since he first became vice president, has aged and slowed down a bit. But you have to admit that the circumstances surrounding this election, and this point in time, are certainly more stressful for him as a presidential candidate than they have been in those past twelve years.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Buying American and providing for Americans before foreign nations is like common sense.

No it isn't. It's impossible to look after your own country without engaging with other countries. It doesn't mean that you can't do that in an ethical way that doesn't undercut working and vulnerable people in your own country. No country on earth is truly self-sufficient, not even North Korea, because it's neither possible nor desirable. I wasn't aware that you were a believer in Juche though.

It ultimately doesn't matter though because we all know that that isn't, and never has been, all that phrase means.

---

Lightning Strikes posted...

No it isn't. It's impossible to look after your own country without engaging with other countries. It doesn't mean that you can't do that in an ethical way that doesn't undercut working and vulnerable people in your own country. No country on earth is truly self-sufficient, not even North Korea, because it's neither possible nor desirable. I wasn't aware that you were a believer in Juche though.

It ultimately doesn't matter though because we all know that that isn't, and never has been, all that phrase means.

You are literally trying to bring in outside bullshit to try and change it into something immoral. It's a dumb argument. Even Biden has a Buy America plan for right out of the gate. It's not a foreign concept. When provided two choices, they want you to choose American when it is feasible.

This is two-fold.

1. You are supporting American business, workers, and the economy.
2. If they are undercutting you, they are likely using tactics which you would find unamerican, such as sweat shops, forced labor, lack of environmental standards, subsidized production, or unfair / sub-standard wages.

America First is literally a concept as old as time. The argument against America First is not that it's some foolish idea. The argument against Trump's America First is that we always have been America First, and he is just looking for ways to say we aren't. Hence his Democrats are globalists and good for our enemies and so on. Or his anti-Bush anti-neocon, with bringing the troops home because they shouldn't be in foreign countries. The neocons (and closet neocon dems) would argue our troops are there because intervention is to keep americans safe before something bad happens.


---

Bidens Buy American stuff is probably his worst plan tbph

---

Biden doesn't do well in interviews but I think he's done fine with debates. At times I think Biden is a bit more internal - what's in his mind isn't what comes out of his mouth. When he's emotional, it's different. I feel like Bernie is the opposite - when he's pushed emotionally, he's defensive/internal. When he's comfortable, he's rolling and amazing.

Trump I think hasn't done well on either but he eats up the ratings and that's what he's going for (intentionally or not.)

Back to Joe -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JdFIGlPfjT0

does that really seem like a senile person? really? nah. but I could pull out a 10 second clip that would look bad on twitter.

but I mean I hope we don't have too many people that have limited their worldview to what they see on twitter...


---

Corrik7 posted...

If they are undercutting you, they are likely using tactics which you would find unamerican, such as sweat shops, forced labor, lack of environmental standards, subsidized production, or unfair / sub-standard wages.

Couldn't possibly be an actual competitive advantage, because as we all know Americans are the best at everything ever

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

Bidens Buy American stuff is probably his worst plan tbph

Most Americans are NIMBY though. They don't believe in buying American first, but would also be the first one protesting the way other countries produce these things if done on American soil also.

I mean, I hear yinz. Cheap prices are good. I don't buy American all the time. But, you would also be a fool to think there isn't a reason why something being shipped from overseas is cheaper than something produced in your backyard also. We turn a blind eye in the name of capitalism a lot, but we also wouldn't turn that blind eye if done in America. That's the problem we have with American companies. We want them to do things the right way, which makes it cost more, while also saying we are going to buy it from the companies not forced to do it the right way for cheaper.

Why should the company operate here then?

It's why the ideas are basically common sense.

---

I mean, America First sounds great on paper, but it completely ignores the reality of the global economy. There's not a whole lot we can do as isolationists so long as foreign countries are able to undercut us with those tactics you mentioned. It's a reason why globalism is an appealing ideology, because the more united the world is, the less of that bullshit can be gotten away with. Right now, the only leverage we have against multinational corporations is "We'll give you tax cuts so you stay in our country! We'll move heaven and earth to keep you happy!" effectively leaving us at the beckon call. If we want to improve America's standing, then we need to reduce the power the corporations have to control our economy. Make it so there's no competitive advantage to manufacturing products overseas compared to in America. And the way to do that is not by making America weaker, but by making those foreign countries stronger.

---

Peace___Frog posted...

Couldn't possibly be an actual competitive advantage, because as we all know Americans are the best at everything ever

Go watch videos on Chinese and Indian coke batteries. lol. Here we are regulating our companies to the ground and getting up at arms for calls for tariffs. When Chinese and Indian coke batteries are huge, huge, huge contributors of pollution due to no standards (not to mention basically no labor safety standards either).

I mean, we already know that sweatshops exist, forced labor by Ughyrs or whatever in China, and etc. It is very few and far between where a country has a competitive advantage. There is a reason why most of the items produced come from the same areas.

---

I mean, as noted, "America First" has a very real historical meaning in this country because it was literally a thing back in the 40s and it very much wasn't "Buy American" lmfao. (I mean technically Woodrow Wilson used it first but it was isolationist [which Trump denied he was when asked about this during the 2016 campaign]) and its meaning/definition/implications are very much rooted in the America First of the the WWII era which was literally rife with anti-semitism and pro-fascism.

sorry that's just how it is

---

And to add to that, the root there is Britain First (and again, one of Mosley's main beliefs was "self-sufficiency"), which later ended up being the name of a fascist party in the UK, infamous for being tied to the murder of an MP and you may also remember them promoting false videos purporting to show Muslim refugees attacking Europeans (but really it wasn't). You might remember that because it was retweeted by none other than Donald John Trump, sparking a massive row in which he refused to apologise. He knows exactly what he's doing with that phrase. You don't accidentally end up retweeting fascist propaganda from a party with a suspiciously similar name to your own slogan.

You don't use loaded terms like that without the knowledge of what it's signalling in addition to the supposed main message. That's why it's called a dogwhistle.

---

I am sure Donald Trump is trying to invoke calls to fascist parties of yesteryears in foreign countries to his base of the uneducated white man.

Lol.

You guys are something else. Again, you can either debate the argument or you can decide not to. Trying to change it to what you want it to be instead of arguing the points of it is simply a waste of time.

---

This is true, I am much more concerned about Trump's fascist actions than this connection.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Trying to change it to what you want it to be instead of arguing the points of it is simply a waste of time.

Oh word
Even corrik agrees that arguing with corrik is pointless

---

Corrik7 posted...

I am sure Donald Trump is trying to invoke calls to fascist parties of yesteryears in foreign countries to his base of the uneducated white man.

Lol.

You guys are something else. Again, you can either debate the argument or you can decide not to. Trying to change it to what you want it to be instead of arguing the points of it is simply a waste of time.

I mean, I DID debate the argument and you chose to go after the people questioning the phrase, rather than my post.

---

Inviso posted...

I mean, I DID debate the argument and you chose to go after the people questioning the phrase, rather than my post.

A small breeze lost in the gale, I fear.


---

Not only is America First a patently dumb idea, apparently it means becoming a Russian puppet.

---

Inviso posted...

I mean, America First sounds great on paper, but it completely ignores the reality of the global economy. There's not a whole lot we can do as isolationists so long as foreign countries are able to undercut us with those tactics you mentioned. It's a reason why globalism is an appealing ideology, because the more united the world is, the less of that bullshit can be gotten away with. Right now, the only leverage we have against multinational corporations is "We'll give you tax cuts so you stay in our country! We'll move heaven and earth to keep you happy!" effectively leaving us at the beckon call. If we want to improve America's standing, then we need to reduce the power the corporations have to control our economy. Make it so there's no competitive advantage to manufacturing products overseas compared to in America. And the way to do that is not by making America weaker, but by making those foreign countries stronger.

Yes and no.

Yes, it does ignore mostly the global economy. What if by prioritizing America, others prioritize themselves and shut America out or drive up prices substantially. It is pretty much an idea that not many countries could successfully get away with on the economic level. This, of course, is why I said it should be when it is feasible. When there isn't a production of something in America, not enough production of a product in America itself, or there is a price that can't be competed at due to actual production efficiencies, then Americans should buy the foreign good. This is how capitalism works. You support the better product in order to spur companies to build better processes in return to continue the cycle of forward movement. Capitalism. Sure.

The problem is when you introduce subsidized, unfair practices, or regulation skirting processes into the mix. This is where a product that is inferior, not advanced, and ruinous to advances in processes can become an issue. Sure, it is cheaper but at what actual cost.

Now to your other point that globalism is an appealing idea. It actually isn't. I don't think it is nearly as popular as you think. Intertwining of economies on a global level is can be very popular in order to promote free trade, however, globalism has an extreme flaw. It simply does not work without a global government. All countries need to be working under the same banner, direction, and team for it to truly work. We see summits and such where countries will simply agree to limitations or such just so the other countries abide by them while they themself have no intention to do so. The Paris Summit or whatever was a perfect example of that. You can't make other countries eradicate their policies "by making them stronger" because those policies in many cases are what are making them stronger, and their goal isn't to sit in the sandbox and play nice but to supersede you as the foremost power and kick you out of the sandbox eventually.

That seems like a very ideal idea, but it is ideal. It lacks all of the realities that exist.

---

I guess the problem I have with your line of thinking is that your idea for how "America First" should work is to debase America (a first world nation, mind you) to the same level of development as a third world nation that currently outdoes us in terms of appealing to corporations with lax working conditions and tax breaks. At that point, yeah, we're trying to be America First, in that we're pushing for our country to gain...but in doing so, we're abandoning what makes America America. Do you get what I'm saying? Your argument feels like saying that we should become less like America in order to bolster America, and at that point, what is the point of putting America first? What are we putting first, exactly?

---

...Man it's been a while since I've seen a good "debate me bro!" response. No, people don't have to engage with you on a level that ignores things that are actually extremely important. Which is another thing about dogwhistles: the ability to go "oh but it's not about X, it's about Y", which Corrik is now doing.

...Of course, even if we were to engage on that level, you still don't have a point. It's not a good idea because it's economically unviable, it's not a noble intention because actually people outside the US matter as well, and even Trump doesn't practice it, nor does he believe it should be practiced. He just uses it as a dogwhistle.

---

Trump only cares about getting elected, not about actually governing.

---

Inviso posted...

I guess the problem I have with your line of thinking is that your idea for how "America First" should work is to debase America (a first world nation, mind you) to the same level of development as a third world nation that currently outdoes us in terms of appealing to corporations with lax working conditions and tax breaks. At that point, yeah, we're trying to be America First, in that we're pushing for our country to gain...but in doing so, we're abandoning what makes America America. Do you get what I'm saying? Your argument feels like saying that we should become less like America in order to bolster America, and at that point, what is the point of putting America first? What are we putting first, exactly?

I don't think I agree that is what we are doing though. Capitalism is about one main thing. Maximizing profits. The problem we have is that companies can be global and pick and choose where to set up and are not beholden to their countries.

Increasing the tax rate on corporations doesn't make sense here because they simply just go to another country and continue to sell here, while at the same time removing the output and jobs from our country.

While we have not had any wars of note lately and probably won't, having production outside of your country can be a major problem. That of course ignores the fact that the job part in giving buying power to our country is there also. As anyone with a little savviness in business will tell you, it is better to have more and be cheaper than less and be more expensive. Lower corporate tax rates are good if it produces enough additional corporations operating in America to replace the tax cost. If it doesn't, it is not worth it. That is before even adding in the additional boost in the workforce jobs and tax rates that come from it.

We are not lowering ourselves. We shouldn't be say adding sweatshops in America to compete, but we should be trying to stamp them out worldwide while also giving corporations here the relief necessary to be on an even playing field tax wise.


---

At this point Trump is mostly driven by ego and the desire not to go to prison

I don't think he's ever actually enjoyed the last 4 years, not for a second

---

Corrik7 posted...

Or his anti-Bush anti-neocon, with bringing the troops home because they shouldn't be in foreign countries.

This makes me legitimately wonder something

How many troops are deployed in foreign countries today versus January 20th 2017

How many net troops has Trump actually brought home
---

Jakyl25 posted...

This makes me legitimately wonder something

How many troops are deployed in foreign countries today versus January 20th 2017

How many net troops has Trump actually brought home

I have no idea. There has been a lot of backlash to bringing troops home though.

---

Does anyone know if theres a way to find out?

Its my favorite Trump policy
---

KamikazePotato posted...

At this point Trump is mostly driven by ego and the desire not to go to prison

I don't think he's ever actually enjoyed the last 4 years, not for a second

I dunno, I think he really enjoys his campaign rallies. Trump is happiest when people are paying attention to him.

---

Jakyl25 posted...

Does anyone know if theres a way to find out?

Its my favorite Trump policy

Current (as of June 30) DoD stats are ~170k active duty, ~20k reserve. Somewhere has to have the stats archived from earlier years but I'm not finding it easily. News articles from back then still say "nearly 200k" as they still do today so I'm guessing the number is basically unchanged.

More contemporary (2019-2020) articles suggest that many of these "withdrawals" are actually just moving them about to different theaters in the Middle East and that when you include announced increases in deployment we might actually be net positive in the Middle East but again lacking the hard numbers on the 2016-2017 numbers I can't be sure if they're right.

---

Not_an_Owl posted...

I dunno, I think he really enjoys his campaign rallies. Trump is happiest when people are paying attention to him.

And all his games of golf.

---

Corrik7 posted...

I don't think I agree that is what we are doing though. Capitalism is about one main thing. Maximizing profits. The problem we have is that companies can be global and pick and choose where to set up and are not beholden to their countries.

Increasing the tax rate on corporations doesn't make sense here because they simply just go to another country and continue to sell here, while at the same time removing the output and jobs from our country.

While we have not had any wars of note lately and probably won't, having production outside of your country can be a major problem. That of course ignores the fact that the job part in giving buying power to our country is there also. As anyone with a little savviness in business will tell you, it is better to have more and be cheaper than less and be more expensive. Lower corporate tax rates are good if it produces enough additional corporations operating in America to replace the tax cost. If it doesn't, it is not worth it. That is before even adding in the additional boost in the workforce jobs and tax rates that come from it.

We are not lowering ourselves. We shouldn't be say adding sweatshops in America to compete, but we should be trying to stamp them out worldwide while also giving corporations here the relief necessary to be on an even playing field tax wise.

I guess where I'm coming from is, if we're willing to kowtow to the corporations HERE, where does it end? Like, we could say "you'll pay zero taxes whatsoever!" and that sounds great, but given the current nature of capitalism, what's stopping another country from saying the same thing, with the added benefit of "we won't enforce pesky workplace safety laws, or environmental regulations"? Then we'd have to match that same kind of lax regulation to stay competitive with countries willing to go lower than us. It turns the entire world into independent contractors, all trying to get the lowest bid for corporations and effectively giving the corporations all of the power, because by sheer virtue of offering jobs to the local population, they're still providing the barest possible net positive, and countries maintain the mindset of "well if WE don't do it, then someone ELSE will". It's a race to the bottom, as I said. We see it in how Amazon pitted states and even cities against each other back when they were trying to install that new headquarters in New York.

What needs to happen is effectively the world unionizing (hence globalism) and agreeing to a set standard, complete with oversight (which you'd think we, as America, could enforce). If everyone is operating under the same ruleset, then the corporations have less power to try and find a "best deal", and if countries like America happen to be their top customers, they'd have better reason to stake themselves in America, as opposed to overseas.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

If someone was videotaping 50% of everything you ever said do you think it would be impossible for them to select a subset of footage that made you look like you had mental problems?

Sure, but I'm not drawing my conclusions from watching edited clips. More from watching debates and Biden's own commercials.

Maybe "maximizing profits" isn't a sustainable form of government

Inviso posted...

what's stopping another country from saying the same thing, with the added benefit of "we won't enforce pesky workplace safety laws, or environmental regulations"? Then we'd have to match that same kind of lax regulation to stay competitive with countries willing to go lower than us. It turns the entire world into independent contractors, all trying to get the lowest bid for corporations and effectively giving the corporations all of the power, because by sheer virtue of offering jobs to the local population, they're still providing the barest possible net positive, and countries maintain the mindset of "well if WE don't do it, then someone ELSE will". It's a race to the bottom, as I said. We see it in how Amazon pitted states and even cities against each other back when they were trying to install that new headquarters in New York.

This is the problem and what many are okay with as log as NIMBY. Let them do what they want over there, so I can personally save money on my items. I just don't want to see or hear about it.

It isn't a race to the bottom. It should be a level playing ground. We can't force others to do this. Hence how subsidixing, labor laws, environmental regulations, and such are major problems. The only way to fight against this is tariffs and political pressure.

Nobody is going to agree to world unionizing and standard practices for the most part because in reality there are countries in competition with us. They are not going to agree to our rules, basically our sovereignty. They are okay with everyone else agreeing to rules and will even nudge them in that direction, as long as they don't have to play by those rules because they can use it to their advantage to lure companies and get technology off of them.

That is the problem with the idea. It is not cumbaya among everyone. There is competition among countries.

And world unionizing is not going to work. Countries, especially in China or India, have zero issue breaking unions through force or easy replacement. Same with poorer countries with less options. It is t a realistic viewpoint. That would be something maybe 1000 years from now once one country has subjugated the rest and cultural differences dissipate.

---

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/08/22/u-s-active-duty-military-presence-overseas-is-at-its-smallest-in-decades/

Pew seems to reckon that it was 193k in 2016, so there has been a small decline, but much smaller than the rate of change under Obama. So Trump hasn't done much one way of the other. That's all countries of course as well, so who knows what the number is for the middle east.

---

Again, your argument is that, to equal the playing field, America should sink to the level of our most unscrupulous competition. "Labor laws and environmental regulations are a major problem" should not be the mindset of someone trying to look out for America's well-being, first and foremost. I admit that globalism is an idealistic pipe dream, but there has to be SOMETHING we can do to better others, rather than us having to get worse. That's essentially saying "Welp, nothing we can do. Better give the corporations everything they want and hope it's good enough."

Also, tariffs are a shitty solution between they just pass the extra expenses along to the consumer regardless. If corporations have to spend more to ship their products into America, or if corporations have to spend more to abide by American laws, in both cases, they're spending more and charging the average citizen more to compensate. We're the only ones losing from tariffs.

---

Inviso posted...

environmental regulations are a major problem

This one hits me like a truck every now and then. Destroying civilization to own the libs

It's a real shame that all the people responsible for letting climate change get to cataclysmic levels are going to be dead before any of the REALLY bad stuff starts to happen

---

World unionizing isn't going to work, but the US is about 1/3 of the consumer market for the world, so we have tremendous bargaining power to unilaterally impose environmental and safety regulations, provided that we back it up with tariffs on countries that don't follow our rules. The US + EU is like 2/3 of the consumer market for the world, and the EU already has and probably will continue to have fairly solid environmental and safety regulations. It's not a union but it can give the same effect if the 2 biggest consumer markets do this.

---

red sox 777 posted...

World unionizing isn't going to work, but the US is about 1/3 of the consumer market for the world, so we have tremendous bargaining power to unilaterally impose environmental and safety regulations, provided that we back it up with tariffs on countries that don't follow our rules. The US + EU is like 2/3 of the consumer market for the world, and the EU already has and probably will continue to have fairly solid environmental and safety regulations. It's not a union but it can give the same effect if the 2 biggest consumer markets do this.

I doubt that is even close to true, but even if it was, it would not be followed suit. Countries have strangleholds on certain products and other ways to impose their will. China has continually bucked this thru and thru.

---

Corrik7 posted...

I doubt that is even close to true, but even if it was, it would not be followed suit. Countries have strangleholds on certain products and other ways to impose their will. China has continually bucked this thru and thru.

China can make stuff for cheap. But their buyers are predominantly in the US or Europe. If the US and EU both put in substantial tariffs, there is little China can do but comply.

I am talking about nominal purchasing power, not PPP adjusted. Because the manufacturer only cares about the nominal amount, which is what they receive. It does a Chinese manufacturer little good to sell the same product in China for 50% of the price that they would get in the US. Although a Chinese consumer can replicate puchases of the same products for less money, that isn't helpful to the manufacturer.

---

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/02/investing/united-airlines-furloughs/index.html

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/02/politics/joe-biden-historic-fundraising-haul-august/index.html

---

Also 2/3 may be somewhat out of date (especially with the UK leaving the EU this year) - would be pretty confident it's still in the ballpark of 60% though (including the UK).

---

https://twitter.com/_cingraham/status/1301240433628950528?s=21
---

i guess technically it's hard to say that the qanon conspiracy is 100% false, because it's (as others have put it) such a "big tent". at this point, qanon has rolled every other conspiracy theory into its lore, so if you believe in any unconfirmed funny business since the JFK assassination you technically think qanon is 0.1% true

33% of republicans saying 'mostly true' is fucking insane, though. what is wrong with people

---

banananor posted...

i guess technically it's hard to say that the qanon conspiracy is 100% false, because it's (as others have put it) such a "big tent". at this point, qanon has rolled every other conspiracy theory into its lore, so if you believe in any unconfirmed funny business since the JFK assassination you technically think qanon is 0.1% true

33% of republicans saying 'mostly true' is fucking insane, though. what is wrong with people

that's kind of like saying "Flat Earthism isn't completely false. After all, they admit that the Earth exists!"

---

NFUN posted...

that's kind of like saying "Flat Earthism isn't completely false. After all, they admit that the Earth exists!"

Does the Earth exist? Many people are saying that it doesn't.

Corrik7 posted...

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/02/investing/united-airlines-furloughs/index.html

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/02/politics/joe-biden-historic-fundraising-haul-august/index.html

My firm has been asked to slow all work on the cases we have for United Airlines, so I buy this.

---

I think the uncertainty in Nates model is too high this year (especially if you compare to 2016, where Clinton was in an objectively worse position but was being given the same or better odds for most of the models run), but if this is anywhere close to true its extremely disturbing:

https://twitter.com/natesilver538/status/1301190941110341632?s=21h

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

I think the uncertainty in Nates model is too high this year (especially if you compare to 2016, where Clinton was in an objectively worse position but was being given the same or better odds for most of the models run), but if this is anywhere close to true its extremely disturbing:

https://twitter.com/natesilver538/status/1301190941110341632?s=21h

That sounds about right. It looks like he views D+3 as the breakeven point. I've been working with D+4 being the breakeven in my own modeling.

Trump crossed into favorite territory on Betfair today, apparently. He's up to 45% on PredictIt.

---

https://twitter.com/AFP/status/1301162842125672449

Ugh

LordoftheMorons posted...

I think the uncertainty in Nates model is too high this year (especially if you compare to 2016, where Clinton was in an objectively worse position but was being given the same or better odds for most of the models run), but if this is anywhere close to true its extremely disturbing:

https://twitter.com/natesilver538/status/1301190941110341632?s=21h

Not surprising. Biden will likely win by a lot in his biggest states (California/New York). Those extra votes won't mean much...

---