Jump to content
270soft Forum

IonicAmalgam

Members
  • Content Count

    49
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About IonicAmalgam

  • Rank
    Political Monster

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Current ruminating ideal 2020 cabinet President: Bernie Sanders Vice President: Michelle Obama State: Lincoln Chafee Treasury: Elizabeth Warren Department of Defense: Tulsi Gabbard Attorney General: Richard Blumenthal - OR - Jeff Sessions (bipartisanship) Agriculture: Niaz Dorry (http://nffc.net/index.php/who-we-are/staff/) - picking outsider (hopefully this is one, too many big agriculture groups found on google) to fight corruption Labor: Sherrod Brown Commerce: Christina Romer Housing & Urban Development: John Robert Lewis Transport: TBD Energy: Al Gore Education: James Peyser Veterans Association: Johnny Isakson - bipartisanship (although maybe not since the VA is disfunctional and this guy's been overseeing it in the senate, maybe needs outside blood, in which case, Bernard J. Tyson) Homeland Security: TBD
  2. I read an article that warren's internal campaign team wants to be a backup for a Sanders like candidate (focused on anti-corruption) in case something happens to Sanders in the primary and intends to stay fairly late into the cycle. I doubt she'd endorse anyone else if she did drop out. ____ Harris is the establishment's preferred candidate since she's good at 1) Identity Politics, 2) faking being a progressive better than clinton, 3) Young, and 4) being corrupt so controllable by the rich donors. But she's failing to gain traction right now. So there's a big push for Biden to enter since the establishment wants Bernie to lose. If Biden enters I expect Harris to drop out and endorse Biden. Harris is incredibly corrupt and if she somehow wins the primary (not that unlikely given our district voted her in) expect Trump to win as big scandal hit pieces would come out. Harris is basically Hillary 2.0. (I support Warren and Tulsi in addition to Bernie, so no it's not her gender, she is seriously corrupt). She got millions from corporate donors to get elected and she said in a live senator primary debate that she would take care of her donors if elected. Instant attack ad right there in the general. Or any of her other past integrity/corruption scandals (eg https://ocweekly.com/kamala-harris-president-campaign-2/, http://www.abovealllaws.com/2019/01/29/senator-kamala-harris-and-her-corrupt-ways-part-1-of-3-videos/) I'll vote for Jill Stein again if Harris is the nominee (no it's not a vote for trump California isn't a swing state). Hillary would be a better president than Harris. At least Hillary only had integrity issues and not corruption issues.
  3. I've taken a 12-axis political spectrum test before and I don't really fit on left or right. I would say the left represents me more in the US from a fiscal perspective (simply due to the right constantly increasing deficits and my disagreement that their policy proposals is what a free market economy means) but the right (or rather libertarians) are closer to my social views.
  4. I don't trust any news sources. It's better to know the bias of the news sources and take their views with certain grains of salt. Generally any nation's media will have positive bias towards itself and negative bias towards rival countries. So to get the most neutral PoV it's important to read from sources with conflicting bias. US news sources are far too unreliable however so I tend to rely on a combination of UK and Russian news sources for news on the US (one is pro and the other is con). I tend to read: The Guardian. Southern China Morning Post (HK), Channel News Asia (Singapore), Russia Today. The Diplomat. The Guardian has a liberal bent but it's reasonably good at covering US news without the overwhelming pro-US bias that's far too prevalent in domestic US media. It's also more trustworthy than BBC in my opinion which tries to present itself as neutral but has biases all the same. At least The Guardian doesn't hide the bias. Russia Today tends to cover things the US media won't cover (but it's reliability is really low) SCMP and CNA are fairly neutral in coverage of international news but they don't have much of it. The Diplomat is the most neutral foreign policy site I've found since it tends to include contributors with different narratives. Foreign Policy and National Review are too warmongering establishment for me.
  5. I don't think any of the options in the first question were applicable to me so I had to go with the third option. 1) America has a kleptocratic crony corporatist economy 3) I support a competitive free market capitalist economy with social guardrails to deal with increasing robotics.
  6. Who cares about if the symptom is man made or not? Arguing over the cause is a red herring and irrelevant. It's happening, and something should be done. It's not relevant the fact that climate change is happening and something needs to be done. Also this entire poll is a straw man argument.
  7. Think he had high personal integrity, which is something many representatives in government don't have. Really sad to see him go.
  8. I would love for us to be able to shift platform/issue centers over time in the primaries/general election in the US naturally (rather than current method via event). Eg voters who shift over to support one candidate would slowly adopt that candidate's platform.
  9. I would be in favor of a constitutional amendment that allows US citizens not born in the US to run for presidency if they have spent the majority of their life in the US. Eg I've been in the US since I was 3 and am not eligible, while my little brother who left the US when 3 (and grew up overseas) is. Musk could always run through a proxy candidate. Others have done so in other countries before when they weren't legally allowed to run.
  10. Voted No since it won't make partisanship better, it would need to be some other thing such as corruption or treason.
  11. IonicAmalgam

    National Debt

    1) No, because politically there is not the will to enact reforms curtailing special interests that benefit from the debt. 2) Yes, because the economic consequences will be severe. However not all debt need to be repaid. For example, government debt owned by multinationals participating in tax dodging (eg Apple) and bought with funds illegally gained should be declared null and void. In addition, the US will likely need a debt restructuring (eg interest freeze) in order to service the debt without painful political consequences.
  12. 1) Harris is terrible. She's a great orator, but she is CORRUPT AS )(*^. Trump could dump opposition research on her like no tomorrow. Great example of identity politics in California and voters being idiots. In a primary debate she literally gave a call out to her corrupt owners on live TV saying she will take care of them. Our previous senator was better. The Republican option was better. Anyone on the ballot on California would've been better than her. She is Hillary 2.0, except personable, and less centrist on social issues. O'Malley was pretty competent in debates and platform but he failed in 16. Closest to Biden imo. 2) Brown is the most electable with Ohio and the platform, but Biden has name recognition. I would personally prefer Warren for integrity but she's not going to be popular in the middle of America (she would still win and is my preferred ticket, just not the one with the highest chance of winning). Would go with Bernie but he's getting old and he deserves a break, would prefer Bernie as an adviser instead. That being said, I think Biden would be a continuity president and not a reformer the country needs. Even though Biden is the most electable. 3) Neither from a legacy standpoint. Obama was a continuity president who failed to really move the needle (ACA is a dumpsterfire in implementation and a cop-out to the insurance industry without fixing root causes). He also gave false hope to people and prevented reforms. Trump is terrible from a competency standpoint but at least he's making people pay more attention. Also some of his unpopular policies are actually good from a long term standpoint (well not the best choice but better than status quo).
  13. Lol okay I'm not going to argue semantics here.
  14. explain these terms in laymans
  15. Republicans have their tribes too - christian fundamentalists, libertarians, anti-tax, free trade, gun rights - but I feel right now nationalism (or populism but I don't really think it counts as populism) is the larger overriding issue determining who they are voting for. They are similar, but different. Tribalism I feel focuses more on differences between groups, while nationalism tries to define everyone as being the same. Both are 'us or them' but they are on a different level.
×
×
  • Create New...