Jump to content
270soft Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About ZedWilliamsR

  • Rank
    Political Monster

Profile Information

  • Interests
    Social Liberal - Interventionist/neorealist - Open Borders, Free Trade, Carbon Tax, Abolish corporate tax, Deficit spending, Negative Income Tax, Strong welfare state, Pro nuclear, Expand NATO, Supports Guaido. O'Rourke/Buttigieg 2020 (Democrats, Lib Dems, En Marche, Liberal Party of CA)

Recent Profile Visitors

122 profile views
  1. Rasmussen polls are terrible. I wouldn't trust the head to head match ups they come up with.
  2. I didn't need to be pinged for this.
  3. Assange and Wikileaks as a whole tried to make Hillary lose the election by selectively publishing information. Assange should have his trial, I don't consider myself too patriotic but I struggle to support anyone that is beholden to an enemy country trying to influence our elections. He tried so hard to play Russia's game and get the Snowden deal, it didn't work out.
  4. I agree with nearly all of the outcomes but I think Virginia is a bit bluer than you give it credit for. I also don't see any dem winning Ohio. Looking again the O'Rourke map is odd. O'Rourke losing Minnesota, Michigan, and Pennsylvania is way off those states are trending general blue.
  5. I've already said nuclear war and especially first strike would be bad, we don't need to spend much time making obvious moral statements that no one here is going to disagree on. SDI makes the world more dangerous though so I wouldn't say one country getting a massive defensive advantage is a good thing for security reasons. Total protection from nuclear weapons is also nearly impossible, so you need some other promised response than just defense. We'd be lucky to see 90% effectiveness, when a country has hundreds or over a thousand nukes to launch the end result will still be disastrous.
  6. I'm not going to be drawn into a big debate because I always write a lot and receive no response. Quickly I will just say that expected response time is very important. I would imagine that the V.P would 98 times out of 100 be able to respond to such a situation quickly but creating a law that requires multiple officials agree on the use of nuclear weapons would need a lot of exceptions for different possible scenarios, I would probably also only require the V.P be consulted for first strike use if such a law were to be implemented. Obviously a nuclear conflict would be bad, we don't need to spend time talking about whether or not nuclear war is preferable to no nuclear war.
  7. You say you know a lot about I.R but then you come up with takes like these.
  8. Allowing college athletes to take shoe deals and make money from their likeness would be great but having the colleges pay them a salary would kill smaller D1 teams that can't afford to pay their athletes, they'd just get priced out of competition. It's also a strange stance to for a presidential candidate to list when his foreign policy section is lacking. It looks to me like someone intentionally taking 'easy' stances while avoiding anything that Yang doesn't feel dems can unify around, to me that feels very artificial and crafted his policies based on polling and nothing more.
  9. I'm doing this quickly so this will just be a partial list of problems I have w/ Yang. 1. Plays into the 'not enough white babies' and 'economic anxiety' line. 2. Wants to drasticly cut the number of people government employs when government is already understaffed 3. No experience in government 4. Wants to create a branch of the army that would be able to bypass any laws to take people's land (legion of builders and destroyers) 5. No discernible foreign policy other than making it harder for the president to authorize use of nuclear weapons (What's the point of this? Nuclear weapons have to be able to be used quickly in the event of an emergency, we can't have an attack imminent and need to schedule a meeting between the President and V.P possibly in different parts of the world) 6. Intentionally takes weird stances on irrelevant topics to gain attention (look at what he has said on the UFC and NCAA) 7. Wants a 10% VAT tax, VAT taxes are highly regressive because companies offload the tax onto consumers raising the prices and hurting the poor more than anyone else. 8. Lacks charisma and in my opinion seems generally aloof. I get the impression that there's not much of an emotional connection to the policies he advocates for and he's kinda just arguing for whatever polls well and gets him attention. Against 9. Plays around with military budget in a seemingly arbitrary way, don't just say re-channel 10% tell us what exactly is getting cut. R&D? Maintenance? 10. Wants people to be able to vote with their phones, everyone who works in the cyber security industry seems VERY opposed to this idea. That's a very quick outline of my thoughts on Yang as a candidate. His UBI also helps the middle and upper middle class way more than it helps the poor because it doesn't stack with welfare. Getting 8,000 a year from the government through assistance would mean you'd get 4,000 from the 'freedom dividend' whereas someone making 180,000 who doesn't need another 12k would get that full amount.
  10. Yang is fine as a spokesman for UBI, terrible as a candidate for president.
  11. Preach. I should've learned that a while ago.
  12. I'm a minority so the Nazi route is basically locked out for me. I disagree fairly strongly with describing Sweden as a democratic socialist country, private capital still owns and runs businesses, wage labor remains, and goods are sold in a relatively free market. I'd describe Sweden as either social liberalism or social democracy. https://jacobinmag.com/2018/08/democratic-socialism-social-democracy-nordic-countries Jacobin Mag is an explicitly socialist magazine, here they say the nordic countries aren't DemSoc but rather SocDem. https://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffreydorfman/2018/07/08/sorry-bernie-bros-but-nordic-countries-are-not-socialist/#1abfd9da74ad Here is a forbes article also going over the nordic countries not being an example of socialism. I'd also like to add quickly that the definition of Social Democracy has changed over time. The SocDems Rosa Luxemburg or Eugene Debs would talk about would still be genuine socialists, over time though that type of SocDem became described generally as democratic socialists in the United States. I must say I strongly disagree with your conclusion of how the U.S would end up. I'm not going to do a full post on it but I would just say that if Congress wouldn't pass the Socialists' desired reforms they would have organized a general strike. In that situation I would imagine the outcome would be similar to the downfall of the Russian provisional government. Socialists in office are working with the Liberals in government and a more radical group who doesn't want that negotiation or considers winning the presidency in and of itself a national mandate for the approval of the socialist policies of that time. In our timeline in Russia that's how the Bolsheviks took power in the October 'Revolution' in this historical timeline I would imagine a similar situation. That's assuming congress could somehow stop the elected socialists from getting their reforms. If the president had a socialist congress as well then the most likely scenario would be civil war with European intervention to save the massive amounts of capital already invested in the Americas. I wouldn't be surprised if we saw the development of 'war communism' during that time to fight against the U.S capitalists and European powers intervening. I definitely wouldn't want to live under such conditions, which is why I didn't vote for the socialists in any of the elections. Socialism as an ideology has evolved over time, the socialists of yesteryear are not the self-described socialists of today and you seem to treat them as the same. @vcczar
  13. Saying "Every country should behave irrationally to fit my moral system" is completely useless. Your ideal system can never happen in an anarchic world because it relies on countries acting against their own interests permanently when there is a massive advantage to whatever country breaks that perma-peace agreement first. When no definite knowledge of another countries intentions is possible, especially when a country acting rationally will break the agreement and take advantage of one country following 'Patine's moral principles' then it should be really easy to see that this will inevitably break down. Supporting an unworkable system because it makes you feel good is something I would consider immoral, because the very real consequence of promoting your ideology is harm to whatever country follows your moral system. It is also especially silly to debate with other people online if you're going to defend an impossible system, I could just say I find everyone not being a billionaire in a world where each dollar permanently retains its value immoral and say the U.S should make everyone a billionaire without letting the value of a dollar change. It's a pointless unworkable system but I guess I could claim some sort of superiority over others and stroke my ego debating with others when they try to suggest actually manageable ways to improve the lives of others because they aren't as grand in my head as my big unworkable dream. If you want a Leviathan that's fine, the closest we've got to a Leviathan is the post cold war United States and because of this situation we are living time of relative peace, especially considering how lethal weapons are now. Maybe we should support the U.S working to maintain its position as a global superpower because of the peace that our web of alliances and trade partnerships helps to bring about. It's also worth noting something that doesn't show in past data, the range of realistic wars has been drastically reduce. 200 years ago if Russia and the U.S w/ Europe had the same relationship as we do now a war between the two countries would be within the real of possibility. A protracted ground war with Russia is unthinkable today. A lot of this peace trend is also caused because of global capitalism and nuclear weapons. I'm not sure that you're a fan of either of those.
  14. @Patine I don't know how much time you have but I would really recommend reading 'Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities' or at least some of the talks the author, John Mearsheimer gives. It will probably give you a better understanding of the different schools of though in international-relations. You'll probably agree with its assessment of liberalism and maybe nationalism, I don't think you know much about realism as a school of thought based on our past conversations and hearing these three ways of thinking put into their historical i-r context would probably give you a better understanding of why countries behave the way they do. Beyond that you should also watch/read some of the International relations 101 stuff. It is fine to feel like war itself is bad but you should also acknowledge that war is often the most rational act for a country to engage in. There's a good youtube series by 'William Spaniel' on IR 101 that has short 5-8 minute videos explaining different concepts like preventative war and preemptive war. Final note: This isn't me talking just about the Iraq war which I think in its totality probably wasn't worth the costs but a more general point on how you view the actions of states.
  15. Congrats on post #10,000 you probably could've made it a better post in honor of the occasion though.
  • Create New...