Jump to content
270soft Forum

How long do you give the United States to last as a country?


How long do you give the United States to last as a country?  

29 members have voted

  1. 1. How long do you give the United States to last as a country?

    • At least 500 years.
      13
    • About 300 years.
      7
    • About 100 more years.
      3
    • About 50 more years.
      3
    • About 25 more years.
      1
    • Maybe a decade.
      2
    • Not long - 5 years at most.
      0


Recommended Posts

All countries rise and fall. We sometimes have a hard time appreciating this, even though geopolitical lines are continuously changing in other places around the world. How long do you give the United States to last as a country?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 86
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

It could be a disgruntled employee, but we also need someone more trustworthy than Trump to deny this rumor. I don't think anyone can really trust him to speak honestly about anything that he thinks m

I'm saying 300 years because I can't see it falling in 100. I think by 500 we won't really have countries. We might have something similar to the Star Trek Federation or something --- a country basica

All countries rise and fall. We sometimes have a hard time appreciating this, even though geopolitical lines are continuously changing in other places around the world. How long do you give the United

2 hours ago, admin_270 said:

All countries rise and fall. We sometimes have a hard time appreciating this, even though geopolitical lines are continuously changing in other places around the world. How long do you give the United States to last as a country?

I'm saying 300 years because I can't see it falling in 100. I think by 500 we won't really have countries. We might have something similar to the Star Trek Federation or something --- a country basically run by the United Nations or something akin to that. Alternatively, in 500 years, a country might not be necessary. Innovation might make it where we aren't dependent on anything a country or government can give us. Our genes might be modified at birth in such a way that unethical or immoral behavior rarely occurs and we've been modified to be more aware of it when it happens. Perhaps we read each other's thoughts and our intelligence is enough that 1,000 intruding individual thoughts from a unique spectrum of people is not overwhelming. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

One of my favorite books is “The Next 100 Years”, a thinktank’s effort to predict...you guessed it, the next 100 Years...from the then-present perspective of 2008.

Notably, they specifically say “who” the president is during a given time will be very important at the moment, but no individual President/party matters when you project out over a period of 100 years.

They certainly got some things right such as Russia encroaching westward through Europe in the exact ways the book predicts.  It also predicted future enemies and allies that sounded insane in 2008 but now are extremely plausible “thanks” to Trump.

The overarching theme of the book is America coming to terms with the fact that we are an empire.  Some like it, some don’t, but it doesn’t matter — it’s too late to change that course.  We just “are”.

In addition to World War III decades from now (which is mostly fought in space as we take down each other’s satellites), America does reach a depopulation crisis which we combat by actively encouraging immigration from Mexico (in an interesting juxtaposition from our current policy).  In that way, America is indeed projected to “die” in the next 100 years as many of our residents will be (intentionally) immigrated from elsewhere.  
 

But this policy works (in the book), allowing America to eventually emerge victorious and continue on as the last remaining superpower after WW3.

Link to post
Share on other sites

For all its faults, the FPTP and Electoral College typically produces very moderate candidates that don’t threaten the status quo. Not to mention the geography of the USA makes invasion impossible. The only credible threat to the USA as a nation IMO is nuclear armageddon, which is a relatively low risk in this day and age (fingers crossed).

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, vcczar said:

Our genes might be modified at birth in such a way that unethical or immoral behavior rarely occurs and we've been modified to be more aware of it when it happens.

We become a society of Golden Retrievers ...!

(I've taken care of a Golden Retriever, even they still are 'bad' sometimes.)

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, vcczar said:

I'm saying 300 years because I can't see it falling in 100. I think by 500 we won't really have countries. We might have something similar to the Star Trek Federation or something --- a country basically run by the United Nations or something akin to that. Alternatively, in 500 years, a country might not be necessary. Innovation might make it where we aren't dependent on anything a country or government can give us. Our genes might be modified at birth in such a way that unethical or immoral behavior rarely occurs and we've been modified to be more aware of it when it happens. Perhaps we read each other's thoughts and our intelligence is enough that 1,000 intruding individual thoughts from a unique spectrum of people is not overwhelming. 

That gene modding part sounds very scary to me. Probably since I imagine a 1984 scenario where people are gene-modded into blind obedience.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Zenobiyl said:

That gene modding part sounds very scary to me. Probably since I imagine a 1984 scenario where people are gene-modded into blind obedience.

I guess I'm an optimist.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Actinguy said:

One of my favorite books is “The Next 100 Years”, a thinktank’s effort to predict...you guessed it, the next 100 Years...from the then-present perspective of 2008.

Notably, they specifically say “who” the president is during a given time will be very important at the moment, but no individual President/party matters when you project out over a period of 100 years.

They certainly got some things right such as Russia encroaching westward through Europe in the exact ways the book predicts.  It also predicted future enemies and allies that sounded insane in 2008 but now are extremely plausible “thanks” to Trump.

The overarching theme of the book is America coming to terms with the fact that we are an empire.  Some like it, some don’t, but it doesn’t matter — it’s too late to change that course.  We just “are”.

In addition to World War III decades from now (which is mostly fought in space as we take down each other’s satellites), America does reach a depopulation crisis which we combat by actively encouraging immigration from Mexico (in an interesting juxtaposition from our current policy).  In that way, America is indeed projected to “die” in the next 100 years as many of our residents will be (intentionally) immigrated from elsewhere.  
 

But this policy works (in the book), allowing America to eventually emerge victorious and continue on as the last remaining superpower after WW3.

Yes, I've heard of that book. It unrealistically portrays the United States as rock of global stability while the rest of the world falls apart, and apparently glazes over or even ignores issues rotting the U.S. from within like a long-term terminal cancer, as well as ignores the fact that China has consistently proven to far better excel in long-term planning and vision than the United States by far, probably because these things interfere with and detract from the "narrative." From all I've seen or heard, as much a nationalistically biased and distorted rag as the turn-of-the-20th Century Pan-Germanist ideologue's book "the German Century," (1902, I think) was.

Link to post
Share on other sites
38 minutes ago, Patine said:

Yes, I've heard of that book. It unrealistically portrays the United States as rock of global stability while the rest of the world falls apart, and apparently glazes over or even ignores issues rotting the U.S. from within like a long-term terminal cancer, as well as ignores the fact that China has consistently proven to far better excel in long-term planning and vision than the United States by far, probably because these things interfere with and detract from the "narrative." From all I've seen or heard, as much a nationalistically biased and distorted rag as the turn-of-the-20th Century Pan-Germanist ideologue's book "the German Century," (1902, I think) was.

You’ve heard of the book from me.  Did you read it, or just not like it because I said I do like it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Actinguy said:

You’ve heard of the book from me.  Did you read it, or just not like it because I said I do like it.

I was unable to acquire it except through Amazon, but I don't have a credit card, and only sporadic access to my aunt's. It's not in any bookstore here (I checked). So, I looked up an aggregate of book review sites - and that's where my information comes from, as I am currently, unable to read it myself.

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, Patine said:

Yes, I've heard of that book. It unrealistically portrays the United States as rock of global stability while the rest of the world falls apart, and apparently glazes over or even ignores issues rotting the U.S. from within like a long-term terminal cancer, as well as ignores the fact that China has consistently proven to far better excel in long-term planning and vision than the United States by far, probably because these things interfere with and detract from the "narrative." From all I've seen or heard, as much a nationalistically biased and distorted rag as the turn-of-the-20th Century Pan-Germanist ideologue's book "the German Century," (1902, I think) was.

One thing that China has done exceptionally well on is building strong relationships with foreign countries abroad. One benefit of an authoritarian system is that leadership and vision is relatively consistent compared to the United States. The Belt and Road Initiative is incredibly ambitious and has definitely secured international support from many fellow Asian and African countries. The United States needs to step it up and prove that it can work with and lead the world rather than simply bounce back and forth between isolationism and military dick measuring contests. China's growth must be combatted in ways outside of tariffs and rhetoric. Perhaps Biden will see that, but Trump does not. 

I'm not in favor of rapid militarization nor needless wars, but I'd rather that the United States be superpower of the world than China or Russia. We need to invest in the infrastructure and ideologies of these developing countries that may well be a focal point of diplomatic tension with China in the near future. The longer that we allow China to go unmatched in these areas the more difficult that it will be to assert ourselves over them in the future. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Herbert Hoover said:

One thing that China has done exceptionally well on is building strong relationships with foreign countries abroad. One benefit of an authoritarian system is that leadership and vision is relatively consistent compared to the United States. The Belt and Road Initiative is incredibly ambitious and has definitely secured international support from many fellow Asian and African countries. The United States needs to step it up and prove that it can work with and lead the world rather than simply bounce back and forth between isolationism and military dick measuring contests. China's growth must be combatted in ways outside of tariffs and rhetoric. Perhaps Biden will see that, but Trump does not. 

I'm not in favor of rapid militarization nor needless wars, but I'd rather that the United States be superpower of the world than China or Russia. We need to invest in the infrastructure and ideologies of these developing countries that may well be a focal point of diplomatic tension with China in the near future. The longer that we allow China to go unmatched in these areas the more difficult that it will be to assert ourselves over them in the future. 

Yes, China certainly learned from seeing the absolute botch and grave mistake by the U.S., UK, France, Portugal, and the USSR during the Cold War to do far better than just install bloody-handed, human-rights-abusing, tinpot despots into power in Third World countries to stop another such tyrant "from the other side," from taking power - one rarely objectively any worse. This highly flawed and misguided tactic for securing the Third World strategum - which, even though it's not done AS MUCH, still greatly stains and taints the reputations of those Cold War power in the Third World to this day - has been greatly avoided by China, who has approached their Third World dealings with at least a face of greater benevolence.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, admin_270 said:

We become a society of Golden Retrievers ...!

(I've taken care of a Golden Retriever, even they still are 'bad' sometimes.)

This is incorrect. Golden Retrievers are angels 100% of the time. :)

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Patine said:

Yes, China certainly learned from seeing the absolute botch and grave mistake by the U.S., UK, France, Portugal, and the USSR during the Cold War to do far better than just install bloody-handed, human-rights-abusing, tinpot despots into power in Third World countries to stop another such tyrant "from the other side," from taking power - one rarely objectively any worse. This highly flawed and misguided tactic for securing the Third World strategum - which, even though it's not done AS MUCH, still greatly stains and taints the reputations of those Cold War power in the Third World to this day - has been greatly avoided by China, who has approached their Third World dealings with at least a face of greater benevolence.

It may be on the surface more benevolent, but the countries that China invests in are greatly indebted to China. When China invests, they typically include clauses about the repercussions for non-payment, and they are very serious. It's been some time since I've wrote about it for school, but I remember specifically that for one of their contracts they are able to repossess the most important port in... Kenya? And in another case, they are able to repossess the most important port in I believe Indonesia.

The Chinese government lures these governments in with promises of great development should they accept the Chinese offers to develop their infrastructure. The numbers look great on the surface and the ideas seem very risky, but potentially worth the rewards, especially since the US and other countries are not particularly interested in funding when it has historically gone very badly. However, the estimates are typically based on numbers that are developed by the Chinese and made to look better than they really are. In Kenya again, they built one freight system that is barely used, and now they hold them by the balls diplomatically over what they could do to them. The Chinese also have the ability to ruin these countries economies and completely pull out their support if their allegiance is not had. While the US coerced with their military, the Chinese have pursued the strategy of coercing with economic pressures, and those can be just as devastating and cost just as many lives as that of war. 

It most definitely tarnishes the reputation of China for those who are aware of it. It is no secret in the international political economy field that China is incredibly predatory and worse than just about any other country in the post Cold War era when it comes to political pressure and dissolving, in parts, the sovereignty of foreign nations. China, the United States, Portugal, Britain, just different tactics to accomplish the same end goals of control. I don't understand your obsession with the West's imposition of their political will over that of countries such as China. The reputation of every major nation is stained, including all of those mentioned above as well as other powers such as Japan and the former Ottoman Empire. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Herbert Hoover said:

It may be on the surface more benevolent, but the countries that China invests in are greatly indebted to China. When China invests, they typically include clauses about the repercussions for non-payment, and they are very serious. It's been some time since I've wrote about it for school, but I remember specifically that for one of their contracts they are able to repossess the most important port in... Kenya? And in another case, they are able to repossess the most important port in I believe Indonesia.

The Chinese government lures these governments in with promises of great development should they accept the Chinese offers to develop their infrastructure. The numbers look great on the surface and the ideas seem very risky, but potentially worth the rewards, especially since the US and other countries are not particularly interested in funding when it has historically gone very badly. However, the estimates are typically based on numbers that are developed by the Chinese and made to look better than they really are. In Kenya again, they built one freight system that is barely used, and now they hold them by the balls diplomatically over what they could do to them. The Chinese also have the ability to ruin these countries economies and completely pull out their support if their allegiance is not had. While the US coerced with their military, the Chinese have pursued the strategy of coercing with economic pressures, and those can be just as devastating and cost just as many lives as that of war. 

It most definitely tarnishes the reputation of China for those who are aware of it. It is no secret in the international political economy field that China is incredibly predatory and worse than just about any other country in the post Cold War era when it comes to political pressure and dissolving, in parts, the sovereignty of foreign nations. China, the United States, Portugal, Britain, just different tactics to accomplish the same end goals of control. I don't understand your obsession with the West's imposition of their political will over that of countries such as China. The reputation of every major nation is stained, including all of those mentioned above as well as other powers such as Japan and the former Ottoman Empire. 

This is all true, and I did indeed say the "benevolence," was indeed superficial. The problem is, the old Cold War powers still have a legacy - one which is much more strongly in the minds and zeitgeists of Third World nations than First World nations themselves - of coups, funded insurgencies (or funding hostile neighbours), military interventions, assassinations, and installing horrible tyrants to cause such nations to fall into line. I'm afraid, as unfortunate as it may be, China's "soft power," seems like a lesser of two evils to many such nations compared to the wretched reputation the old Cold War powers had made for themselves.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Herbert Hoover said:

It may be on the surface more benevolent, but the countries that China invests in are greatly indebted to China. When China invests, they typically include clauses about the repercussions for non-payment, and they are very serious. It's been some time since I've wrote about it for school, but I remember specifically that for one of their contracts they are able to repossess the most important port in... Kenya? And in another case, they are able to repossess the most important port in I believe Indonesia.

The Chinese government lures these governments in with promises of great development should they accept the Chinese offers to develop their infrastructure. The numbers look great on the surface and the ideas seem very risky, but potentially worth the rewards, especially since the US and other countries are not particularly interested in funding when it has historically gone very badly. However, the estimates are typically based on numbers that are developed by the Chinese and made to look better than they really are. In Kenya again, they built one freight system that is barely used, and now they hold them by the balls diplomatically over what they could do to them. The Chinese also have the ability to ruin these countries economies and completely pull out their support if their allegiance is not had. While the US coerced with their military, the Chinese have pursued the strategy of coercing with economic pressures, and those can be just as devastating and cost just as many lives as that of war. 

It most definitely tarnishes the reputation of China for those who are aware of it. It is no secret in the international political economy field that China is incredibly predatory and worse than just about any other country in the post Cold War era when it comes to political pressure and dissolving, in parts, the sovereignty of foreign nations. China, the United States, Portugal, Britain, just different tactics to accomplish the same end goals of control. I don't understand your obsession with the West's imposition of their political will over that of countries such as China. The reputation of every major nation is stained, including all of those mentioned above as well as other powers such as Japan and the former Ottoman Empire. 

This 100%.  China has been playing chess on the world stage, while the US has been playing checkers.  China in its current form poses a far more dangerous threat to the United States than the USSR ever did.  Chinese leadership is fully aware of the mistake that the USSR made in trying to compete with the United States military, and smartly decided that the best way to destroy the United States is through economic warfare.

As mentioned above, US foreign policy has been complete garbage when it comes to exerting international influence since the Bush era (it is not a partisan problem), and China has been eager to take advantage of this by making it's presence known in areas where US influence has waned.  Even in the Caribbean, many nations here are practically owned by the Chinese at this point.  Jamaica is probably the worst off when it comes to being indebted to China (the Chinese practically own the island at this point), but there has been much dialogue between the Bahamas and the PRC as well.  This is significant due to the fact that Florida is less than 50 miles away from the nearest inhabited island in the Bahamas, not to mention the presence of AUTEC (the Navy's Area 51), which is located in the country as well.  All throughout the region, the Chinese have invested heavily into infrastructure by building roads, naval ports, airports, in addition to providing low interest loans to many Caribbean governments following the Recession.  Many of the Caribbean countries are heavily indebted to China at this point, and as pointed above, these loans are in fact very predatory, and could potentially provide China with major footholds located directly next door to the continental US.  No doubt that the PRC has listening posts scattered throughout the region as well, which is very important considering that Mar-A-Largo is well within range for potential interception of communications from outposts in the Caribbean.

This is not unique to the Caribbean though, as pointed out above.  China has been heavily investing into Africa, South America, Europe, certain friendly Asian nations, etc. and at this point, Chinese influence probably exceeds American influence on the international level.  Hard to argue with a nation that you practically owe all of your treasury too if they ever come to collect on their debts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

While people are on the topic of Chinese geopolitics I think this video does a great job explaining recent world events around China (pre-covid). Its a bit long, but the video’s creator is very thorough in his research so I think it’s worth a watch.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am one of the votes for "maybe a decade", depending on how things play out with this election, and what happens afterwards.

Anyone who has studied history can see that the US is going towards civil war at this point.  Review the decadency and societal conditions surrounding the collapse of Rome, and you will see many stark similarities.  There are some similarities to events that occurred at the start of the 20th century in the Weimar Republic and pre-Revolution Russia as well. 

At this point, America is not unified as a nation.  One half of the political spectrum believes that the United States is a country built upon the foundation of evil, while the other believes that the country can do no wrong.  When both sides cannot agree that their nation is a good one at its core, then it stops being about what is best for the country as a whole because one side sees the need for radical change, while the other sees the need to fight tooth and nail to preserve the status quo.  The political climate today is a lot different than it was 10 years ago, things are much more partisan and issues are much more hot button than they were at that time.  The mass adoption of social media and cancel culture has only made things worse in my opinion, politics has spread into every sphere of one's life : work, hobbies/play, church, etc., which is a very bad thing in my opinion.  People will always be divided on what they think is best for running a country, but there is a time and a place for everything under the sun.  Nowadays, even what brands you purchase in the store can be made political.  By this brand because they support this issue, or support this company for whatever reason... It is just like taking too much work home with you, it eventually leads to a big burn out.  That is bad because political fighting is never going to end.  Even if the United States collapsed today, there would be fighting and jockeying over who got to sit on top of the ashes.

I know many may scoff at this, but I believe that the potential for the United States to devolve into civil war is rather high between the time period of November - January.  One particularly concerning aspect to me is the tabulation of the mail-in ballots.  I would have no quandaries if they were tabulated before/on election day, but having the counting process extend days/weeks past November 3rd is only going to raise tensions to explosive levels.  We all know that Biden has retained lawyers in the event that a constitutional crisis occurs, in addition to Trump's remark about transition if necessary; we all know that there is going to be nothing but accusations and swipes over the mail in issue until the ballots are counted, and there is an even scarier potential for one side not to accept the results.  I personally believe that the best way to resolve all of this is to count the mail-in ballots before/on November 3rd.  That way, we all know who legitimately won that night/next morning (unless it turns out like 2000 again), and there can be no accusations of manipulating the votes over the next several days/weeks.  Basically, there needs to be a way to keep tensions under control.  This election is probably one of the most divisive since 1860 for the country, and there is the potential for one hothead to create another Fort Sumter if the authorities in charge are not careful.

If it doesn't happen during this election, we need to look at 2024 as well.  What if Trump legitimately wins ie. there is no legitimate contest that can be made to the election results?  Are Democrats/Democrat supporters going to accept that, or will there be a brand new wave of rioting and civil disobedience.  What if Biden wins in a decisive victory, would Trump supporters accept such a result, especially with all of the controversy surrounding mail-in ballots?  Assuming that the nation survives to 2024, will partisanship only get worse?  What if the executive changes parties at that point, will either side accept the result?  A lot to look at going forward.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

@admin_270 Here's another "sign of the fall of the Republic" https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/09/america-was-this-close-to-vice-president-ivanka-trump

Apparently, Trump seriously suggested that his own daughter be VP. He seems to operate as if his own family are the only people in the world. Believe it or not, I think VP Ivanka Trump wouldn't have lost any or many votes compared to VP Mike Pence in 2016. It might win and be the only nepotistic ticket in US history. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, CPE said:

I am one of the votes for "maybe a decade", depending on how things play out with this election, and what happens afterwards.

Anyone who has studied history can see that the US is going towards civil war at this point.  Review the decadency and societal conditions surrounding the collapse of Rome, and you will see many stark similarities.  There are some similarities to events that occurred at the start of the 20th century in the Weimar Republic and pre-Revolution Russia as well. 

At this point, America is not unified as a nation.  One half of the political spectrum believes that the United States is a country built upon the foundation of evil, while the other believes that the country can do no wrong.  When both sides cannot agree that their nation is a good one at its core, then it stops being about what is best for the country as a whole because one side sees the need for radical change, while the other sees the need to fight tooth and nail to preserve the status quo.  The political climate today is a lot different than it was 10 years ago, things are much more partisan and issues are much more hot button than they were at that time.  The mass adoption of social media and cancel culture has only made things worse in my opinion, politics has spread into every sphere of one's life : work, hobbies/play, church, etc., which is a very bad thing in my opinion.  People will always be divided on what they think is best for running a country, but there is a time and a place for everything under the sun.  Nowadays, even what brands you purchase in the store can be made political.  By this brand because they support this issue, or support this company for whatever reason... It is just like taking too much work home with you, it eventually leads to a big burn out.  That is bad because political fighting is never going to end.  Even if the United States collapsed today, there would be fighting and jockeying over who got to sit on top of the ashes.

I know many may scoff at this, but I believe that the potential for the United States to devolve into civil war is rather high between the time period of November - January.  One particularly concerning aspect to me is the tabulation of the mail-in ballots.  I would have no quandaries if they were tabulated before/on election day, but having the counting process extend days/weeks past November 3rd is only going to raise tensions to explosive levels.  We all know that Biden has retained lawyers in the event that a constitutional crisis occurs, in addition to Trump's remark about transition if necessary; we all know that there is going to be nothing but accusations and swipes over the mail in issue until the ballots are counted, and there is an even scarier potential for one side not to accept the results.  I personally believe that the best way to resolve all of this is to count the mail-in ballots before/on November 3rd.  That way, we all know who legitimately won that night/next morning (unless it turns out like 2000 again), and there can be no accusations of manipulating the votes over the next several days/weeks.  Basically, there needs to be a way to keep tensions under control.  This election is probably one of the most divisive since 1860 for the country, and there is the potential for one hothead to create another Fort Sumter if the authorities in charge are not careful.

If it doesn't happen during this election, we need to look at 2024 as well.  What if Trump legitimately wins ie. there is no legitimate contest that can be made to the election results?  Are Democrats/Democrat supporters going to accept that, or will there be a brand new wave of rioting and civil disobedience.  What if Biden wins in a decisive victory, would Trump supporters accept such a result, especially with all of the controversy surrounding mail-in ballots?  Assuming that the nation survives to 2024, will partisanship only get worse?  What if the executive changes parties at that point, will either side accept the result?  A lot to look at going forward.

One thing you overlook is that the “both sides” you mention is not indicative of the entire US population. Outside of major crises like the pandemic or 2008 recession the majority of Americans aren’t concerned with much outside of their personal lives.

I think we are biased towards believing everyone is personally invested in politics, because we are personally invested in politics. However, we are a bunch of political junkies who don’t represent the population as a whole.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, CPE said:

Review the decadency and societal conditions surrounding the collapse of Rome, and you will see many stark similarities.

I have pointed this out, myself, several times. Historians could see point in time in Roman history where you could clearly see a social, cultural, and political "terminal cancer diagnosis," internally even while the Empire was still unchallengeable militarily and economically externally. The metaphor used by one such historian, "the old oak tree appears just as strong and healthy from without as ever, but the rot within is killing it." I think it's obvious the United States has reached that point. Unfortunately, I don't believe a Biden victory will do any more long-term good in this area than a Trump - just different methods to push the rotting death forward. Unlike Trump's thoughtless, inexplicable trainwreck policies, Biden seems almost certain to seamlessly continue with the foreign and military policy ideals of his clique in the halls of power - that of the Bushes, the Clintons, and Obamas - and that style of policy is a big reason the U.S. is where it is now in that regard. If the nation is to be saved, it'll be by "bitter medicine," "shock therapy," and/or "drastic triage," - not standard and long-observed and -carried on political proceedings.

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Zenobiyl said:

One thing you overlook is that the “both sides” you mention is not indicative of the entire US population. Outside of major crises like the pandemic or 2008 recession the majority of Americans aren’t concerned with much outside of their personal lives.

I think we are biased towards believing everyone is personally invested in politics, because we are personally invested in politics. However, we are a bunch of political junkies who don’t represent the population as a whole.

It could be those who I have in my social circle in particular, but it seems like everything is political nowadays; however, I do understand your point.  It will be interesting to see voter turnout for this election, supporters of both candidates definitely have a reason to be rushing to the polls.  One key difference between this year and 2016, in my opinion at least, is that not too many people thought Trump could actually win in 2016, which possibly lead to lower turnout than expected for the Democrats.  With him actually in office, it will be interesting to see how turnout rates compare to four years ago.

 

18 minutes ago, Patine said:

I have pointed this out, myself, several times. Historians could see point in time in Roman history where you could clearly see a social, cultural, and political "terminal cancer diagnosis," internally even while the Empire was still unchallengeable militarily and economically externally. The metaphor used by one such historian, "the old oak tree appears just as strong and healthy from without as ever, but the rot within is killing it." I think it's obvious the United States has reached that point. Unfortunately, I don't believe a Biden victory will do any more long-term good in this area than a Trump - just different methods to push the rotting death forward. Unlike Trump's thoughtless, inexplicable trainwreck policies, Biden seems almost certain to seamlessly continue with the foreign and military policy ideals of his clique in the halls of power - that of the Bushes, the Clintons, and Obamas - and that style of policy is a big reason the U.S. is where it is now in that regard. If the nation is to be saved, it'll be by "bitter medicine," "shock therapy," and/or "drastic triage," - not standard and long-observed and -carried on political proceedings.

My great-grandmother used to say "6 of one, half a dozen of the other" when it would come to politics.  No one will be able to challenge the US militarily, unless an internal conflict splits the US military into different factions vying for control, but I think that the US can be challenged economically.  China loves to have a cheap slave labour manufacturing base because it keeps jobs out of the US, while giving them political leverage against Trump in the sense that US tariffs on Chinese goods only serve to raise the cost of living for Americans in the long run.  It is not viable to bring most of the manufacturing back to the US either, considering the cheap costs associating with producing in China.  No American labourer will work for Chinese wages, that is for sure.  In addition, China owning half of the world (hyperbole) through loans and investment projects across the globe is a major concern for the US as well.  China is a more important trading partner than the US for many countries nowadays, something that factors heavily into geopolitical decision making.  I personally define China as a superpower already, even if some analysts may disagree with that.  The fact is, they have a global presence on scale with the United States.

My line of thinking is this : if either Trump or Biden win, will the partisanship die down?  Who is going to be best to heal the country going forward is what I am pondering over.  I have not seen too many people simultaneously hated and loved as much as Trump in my life; no matter whether it is good or bad, everyone seems to have an opinion about him (and mostly strong ones as well).  In a weird sense of irony, the White House has seemingly become a reality TV show with many millions of viewers following along lol.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, vcczar said:

@admin_270 Here's another "sign of the fall of the Republic" https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/09/america-was-this-close-to-vice-president-ivanka-trump

Apparently, Trump seriously suggested that his own daughter be VP. He seems to operate as if his own family are the only people in the world. Believe it or not, I think VP Ivanka Trump wouldn't have lost any or many votes compared to VP Mike Pence in 2016. It might win and be the only nepotistic ticket in US history. 

I don't have a hard time believing Trump at least floated the possibility. Trump seems to like to think outside of the box, and wouldn't have a problem considering something like that. She didn't have political experience, but neither did he.

As far as I can tell from what he has done publicly, I think Pence in 2016 did about as well as I could imagine a VP nominee doing for Trump.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

I don't have a hard time believing Trump at least floated the possibility. Trump seems to like to think outside of the box, and wouldn't have a problem considering something like that. She didn't have political experience, but neither did he.

As far as I can tell from what he has done publicly, I think Pence in 2016 did about as well as I could imagine a VP nominee doing for Trump.

Feudal dynastic thinking is "thinking outside the box?" It literally plagued, impeded, and held back Western Civilization for 1500 years, until as recently as the mid-20th Century in some places. This is not innovative and expansive thinking, it's anachronistic throwback thinking.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...