Politics Vote for a president of USA. 2024 election.

Pick a President

  • Joe Biden (Incumbent) - Democrat

    Votes: 3 12.5%
  • Robert F. Kennedy Jr. - Democrat

    Votes: 1 4.2%
  • Marianne Williamson - Democrat

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Donald Trump (Front-Runner) - Republican

    Votes: 14 58.3%
  • Larry Elder - Republican

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Nikki Haley - Republican

    Votes: 1 4.2%
  • Asa Hutchinson - Republican

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Vivek Ramaswamy - Republican

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Corey Stapleton - Republican

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Ron Desantis - Republican

    Votes: 4 16.7%
  • Other - Explain

    Votes: 1 4.2%

  • Total voters
    24
  • This poll will close: .
Big tech isn't politically bias?

VVi29fl.png


Come on man, the first image is so unflattering. It is so obvious what they're trying to do.
 
@Northerner,

This is why I like Elon Musk. Because of changes like community notes. The reason why the Left is calling on all of their dogs to attack him, is because he is disrupting their narrative. The media portrays a deranged psychopath as victim, but the truth is written below on the community notes:

6BS9Izt.png
 
Most people think like robots (NPCs) anyway. They're conditioned (programmed) by the media as to what to think, and what to like and dislike. Somewhere between a mindless robot and a domesticed animal.

Completely agreed. The so-called fear of AI is mostly among the most predictable in our society.
 
Big tech isn't politically bias?

VVi29fl.png


Come on man, the first image is so unflattering. It is so obvious what they're trying to do.


I observe your country as an outsider, as a NW European. Your country fascinates me, amazes me, wonders me.

Imo it's nowadays a society in deep trenches....hatred towards each other. I'm not a fan of happy clappy and one big family either, nothing wrong with fierce political debates! Nevertheless I like the more modest center either in left or right form but In fact I'm an 'old fashioned' but imo still accurat Rhenish model kind of guy.

De Santis isn't my political cup of tea, imo also a kind of agitator kind of politics, but at least I most say obvious-as it looks like- personal more decent than Trump. But also kind of well let's say not so empathetic....Not a man who builds bridges in society. That's all I can say, from fare away oversee in the 'fringes of NW Europe'.

I sincere hope a good candidate of the center will show up! But seen the imo "trenches state of the US" I doubt that.
 
I observe your country as an outsider, as a NW European. Your country fascinates me, amazes me, wonders me.

Imo it's nowadays a society in deep trenches....hatred towards each other. I'm not a fan of happy clappy and one big family either, nothing wrong with fierce political debates! Nevertheless I like the more modest center either in left or right form but In fact I'm an 'old fashioned' but imo still accurat Rhenish model kind of guy.

De Santis isn't my political cup of tea, imo also a kind of agitator kind of politics, but at least I most say obvious-as it looks like- personal more decent than Trump. But also kind of well let's say not so empathetic....Not a man who builds bridges in society. That's all I can say, from fare away oversee in the 'fringes of NW Europe'.

I sincere hope a good candidate of the center will show up! But seen the imo "trenches state of the US" I doubt that.


While his rhetoric is hostile to the Left, I do still believe he is smart enough, and pragmatic enough to know when he needs to put it aside for the greater good.

For example, when Florida was hit with a relatively large-hurricane recently, he worked with Biden in having the state mitigate the devastation.

One thing I definitely disagree with is his hardline against abortion, (I think there should be more access to abortion, especially for low-income people. It is a family planning strategy) but there's also other positions I am weighing.
 
While his rhetoric is hostile to the Left, I do still believe he is smart enough, and pragmatic enough to know when he needs to put it aside for the greater good.

For example, when Florida was hit with a relatively large-hurricane recently, he worked with Biden in having the state mitigate the devastation.

One thing I definitely disagree with is his hardline against abortion, (I think there should be more access to abortion, especially for low-income people. It is a family planning strategy) but there's also other positions I am weighing.

Well that's the part I doubt, agitation, friend-enemy thought (Carl Schmitt) is imo the trenches in optima forma and De Santis represents that too (imo).....no moderate, or will to compromise....

Unfortunately this is also what we see in Europe nowadays.
 
Now that DeSantis is officially in the race, I have added him to the poll.

Imho he only makes a chance when he debunks the hoax of Trump that the election of Biden in 2020 was a fraud. DeSantis very recently does, nevertheless I think may be too little and too late, many Republican voters think that the previous presidential election was illegitimate....

The Republicans are, in effect, still being 'held hostage' by Trump.

So we get a reprise of 2020 Trump vs Biden? :frown:

As I said earlier here "live from San Quentin" and this time not with Johnny Cash....

Imo Maciamo can probably add this all to his list of development country traits. You can (the judge has the last word in this!) probably lie, cheat, incite against the democratic institutions...and even then you can still be chosen as president.....unbelievable, to use a Angela phrase: what a disgrace.

 
Last edited:
The two-party system in the US does not reflect the country's diversity at all. Most other Western countries have between 4 and 10 major political parties to choose from (i.e. among the parties that stand a chance at an election). It's not surprising that most Americans end up not voting at all. That's why the U.S. is considered a flawed democracy (since 2016) by the The Economist Intelligence Unit's Democracy Index (so is Belgium by the way, but for other reasons).

did-not-vote-2016-update.png



didnt-vote-2020-1536x1152.png
 
If I were a US citizen and had to vote, my first criterion would be the environment - and not just climate change, which is certainly not as big an issue as the mass extinction caused by tropical deforestation and illegal poaching or endangered animals (two issues that are apparently completely off the radar of most Americans).

In this regard Trump is probably the worst candidate. According to the NY Times, he rolled back more than 100 environmental regulations, mostly aimed at reducing planet-warming emissions and protecting clean air and water. Anybody who voted or plans to vote for Trump is a fool (and has no business being on Eupedia).

Ron DeSantis said that he "always rejected the politicization of the weather". He has no particular plan to do anything about climate change or improving the environment in the US or worldwide (e.g. by banning imports of beef, soy, palm oil or other products linked to the deforestation of virgin tropical forests, be it in the Amazon, in Africa or in Indonesia).

Nikki Haley has generally rejected governmental efforts to reduce emissions.

Mike Pence has downplayed the risks linked to climate change and had a hand in President Trump’s defiantly anti-climate agenda, including defending the decision to withdraw from the Paris accord. So another big no-no.

Tim Scott has opposed most policies that would curb carbon dioxide emissions. During the Obama administration, Mr. Scott challenged a regulation that would have required utilities to move away from coal and adopt wind, solar and other renewable power. During the Trump administration, he argued for dumping the Paris Agreement. A definite no.

As governor of New Jersey, Chris Christie announced a moratorium on new coal-plant permits, filed a successful petition with the E.P.A. to demand reduced pollution from a coal plant along the Pennsylvania border and signed offshore wind power legislation. But state regulators in his administration didn’t approve any wind projects — and at the same time, Mr. Christie withdrew New Jersey from the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative, a multistate cap-and-trade partnership, and vetoed state legislators’ efforts to rejoin it. Hypocrit.

Asa Hutchinson has not spoken much about climate change, but when he has, he has generally stuck to the Republican Party line, rejecting government efforts to reduce emissions.

Vivek Ramaswamy is also an outspoken opponent of environmental, social and governance investing, or E.S.G., in which financial companies consider the long-term societal effects — including climate-related effects — of their investment decisions. Very narrow-minded. A bad choice.

Larry Elder has called global warming as a “crock” and a “myth. Total jackass.

Based on this information, I'd say that Ron DeSantis and Nikki Halley are the least objectionable Republican candidates. But I am not a specialist and anyway would never vote for a Republican.
 
Traditionally the main things separating Democrats from Republicans have been that:

1) Democrats favour a bigger state with higher taxes to finance healthcare for everyone.
2) Republicans favour less gun control
3) Republicans are opposed to abortion
4) Democrats favour good diplomatic relations while Republicans like to see the US as imposing its will on the rest of the world, using military force if necessary.

Issues like gay marriage, the legalisation of cannabis or euthanasia have become much less divisive recently and are surely not issues worth considering when voting for a president.

Some issues are less clear cut, such as income tax, immigration or death penalty, although generally speaking Republicans prefer lower taxes (who doesn't really?), less immigration (especially from poorer countries), and are more likely to be favourable to death penalty.

Personally I find this division rather confusing as my values wouldn't fit neatly in either camp. I have always been in favour of death penalty and indeed I think that the US isn't doing enough especially with its huge prison population. I believe that all serial murderers or terrorists should be executed (and the quicker the better, no need to waste tax-payer money letting them languishing in prison for years or decades until their execution). I have also been vociferously against immigration of underqualified or undereducated people, especially from Muslim countries (a much bigger issue in Europe than in America).

On the other hand I cannot see how any modern country can function while allowing practically anyone to buy a gun whenever they want. As for abortion, it should always be legal in the first three months as it has been demonstrated that unwanted pregnancies are one of the leading causes of crime in the long term.

In summary I am strongly anti-crime and data shows that to have a safe country there needs to be less immigration from poor, uneducated people, less guns, tougher punishments for murderers and terrorists, and not only allowing but actively encouraging abortions from lower class women who can't afford to raise and educate (unwanted) children properly (often on their own), which in turn will probably turn them into criminals. I have never understood why Republicans can't see the merit of that last point about abortion (well, yes, it's probably just born-again Christians who let their nonsensical biblical rubbish get in the way of reason, which should be an offense in itself as it is detrimental to society as a whole).

As for taxes, I think that nobody likes to pay them. I am not even sure whether I prefer a progressive tax rate or a flat rate for everyone (like in Czechia, Hungary, Romania or Ukraine). What I am sure of is that the ultra rich shouldn't pay less taxes as is currently the case in the United States.

Regarding healthcare the debate is still open. The UK has completely free healthcare for everyone (at one point even non-resident foreigners, although that changed) but the system is not working well as the waiting time is much too long. Switzerland has a system of (expensive) private healthcare compulsory for everyone, which turns out to be among the best in the world. But then the US also has a mostly private healthcare system, which is far more costly than in Switzerland, much less efficient and with waiting times even longer than in the UK. Surely the US healthcare system must be the worst in the world, and indeed it's the only developed country in which life expectancy has been falling for many years in a row. So the healthcare issue is particularly complicated and that shouldn't be a dividing point between Democrats and Republicans, as I am pretty sure that most people have no idea how other systems work in other countries, nor how to fix the present system.


F28mLqCXcAAoaHj


As the chart above shows, the increasing divergence between Democrats and Republicans is of a quite different nature (pun intended), as it is mainly the protection of the environment that splits the two camps. It seems that Republicans are callous and short-sighted enough to think that destroying Earth is justified as long as it's profitable. This is the kind of things that infuriates me. I don't really care one way or another how taxes change, whether politicians think they can stop immigration (turns out they can't, even building walls), or whether there are more or less executions or abortions, or if someone think they can fix America's healthcare and education (far too big a job for a single person, even for the president). The only issue that really matters is to keep Earth inhabitable for future generations, and the way the Republicans would have it, it's going to happen. That's why it's vital not to vote for the Republicans, be it for the presidential elections or for Congress.
 
More and more, I feel like the only true driver of tangible change is outside of the political sphere, and more with technology.

These politicians just go with the flow, and say what ever will get them elected. I like DeSantis, but was turned off by him endorsing RFK Jr. who is a joke.

One of the biggest drivers of global warming is overpopulation. i.e. carbon foot-print per human-life. But birth rates are very low in the West, and now in Asia as well. What needs to addressed is overpopulation in Africa. Sometimes I marvel at how much trash we generate with just currently being a house of 3 people. We recycle and make sure our property is clean. What about countries that have 7 children on average per woman, and do not have the same traditions and practices of maintaining cleanliness?

The greatest crisis of the 21st century will be what to do about African overpopulation.
 
One of the biggest drivers of global warming is overpopulation. i.e. carbon foot-print per human-life. But birth rates are very low in the West, and now in Asia as well. What needs to addressed is overpopulation in Africa. Sometimes I marvel at how much trash we generate with just currently being a house of 3 people. We recycle and make sure our property is clean. What about countries that have 7 children on average per woman, and do not have the same traditions and practices of maintaining cleanliness?

The greatest crisis of the 21st century will be what to do about African overpopulation.

It is true that overpopulation plays a significant role not just in global warming but also in the use of Earth's limited natural resources and of the agricultural land needed to feed the world population, which is increasingly taken from primeval tropical forests (Amazon, equatorial Africa, Southeast Asia), where 80% of the world's documented species can be found.

But Africans are very poor by Western standards are their overall consumption is a mere fraction of ours. The picture below shows how many Earths we would need if everyone lived with the lifestyle of someone from selected countries. The lifestyle of a modern Chinese person is just above the limit of Earth's resources, while if we all lived like an average African or South Asian today, there might just be enough land to sustain everyone's lifestyle. But it would take 4 Earths if everyone lived like an American, even without any population growth (just economic growth in which poor and developing countries play catch-up to the USA to live a similar lifestyle, consumption-wise).

_83647604_ecological-footprint-by-country.png



That was for land use. Now for greenhouse gas emission, a completely different (though partially related) issue. You can check list of countries by greenhouse gas emissions per capita. Petro-states like Brunei, Qatar, Bahrain, Kuwait or the UAE obviously top the list as they burn cheap petrol without thinking twice. But among bigger countries Australia, Canada, the USA and Russia emit the most per capita. At least emissions have been steadily decreasing in Western countries since 2000, while they are increasing in many developing countries. But the point is that Sub-Saharan African countries and India emit between 1 and 3 metric tons of CO2e per capita while a U.S. citizen emits 18 metric tons, and the average for Europeans and Chinese is about 8 or 9 metric tons (only 6 in France thanks to nuclear energy and widespread use of trains, but 10 metric tons in Poland, which still relies heavily on coal to produce its electricity).

iOUs8ZuwcD1H3q5z-ATKdSXcot8ozQkjN8srge21Vao.JPG



So it's unfair to blame Africans for global warming. In fact, just the United States emits more CO2 equivalent than the whole of Africa! You can check the data here. It's 5.93 billion tons of CO2e for the USA in 2021 and 4.73 billions tons for all countries in Africa combined (and 3.38 billions tons for the European Union, nearly half of the US).
 
It would seem like the solution would be to reduce the population in places like the United States. This is something that would happen naturally if not for relaxed immigration policy. All while working towards a more sustainable future that would not require mass farming. It seems counter productive to keep trying to afford thousands of new people the current American lifestyle, if it takes more than 4 earth's.
 
It would seem like the solution would be to reduce the population in places like the United States. This is something that would happen naturally if not for relaxed immigration policy. All while working towards a more sustainable future that would not require mass farming. It seems counter productive to keep trying to afford thousands of new people the current American lifestyle, if it takes more than 4 earth's.

Birth rates are already at the limit or under the replacement threshold in most of the developed world and part of the developing world (e.g. China, most of Latin America). All countries eventually stabilise around a bit less than 2 children by woman once they reach a certain level of development. Countries that developed very fast like Japan, South Korea or Taiwan saw particularly fast drop in birth rates. In Europe countries that were still poor 40 or 50 years ago like Ireland or Poland are seeing their birth rates plummet as their economy soars. The same is true in the Middle East and Africa. The richest countries have the lowest birth rates, and the poorest the highest.

War has always the effect of boosting birth rates and increasing the population in the long term. That's exactly what happened in Afghanistan, Iraq and Syria, which all have much higher birth rates now than before the war, and much higher than their neighbours. I am pretty sure that some American politicians or military leaders were hoping to reduce the Muslim population in those countries when they started the war in these countries, but it backfired spectacularly. Yes, there were hundreds of thousands of casualties. But they were more than compensated by the extra birth rate. For example Afghanistan had 20 million people in 2001 when the US invaded. It now has 42 million, a growth of 110%. Iraq had a population of 27 million in 2003 when the US invaded. It now stands at 46 million - a growth of 70% in 20 years. In contrast, Iran had 68 million inhabitants in 2003 and it now has 89 million, a growth of only 30% in 20 years. During the same period the population of Lebanon grew by only 17%. War caused the population of Iraq and Afghanistan to grow at least 3 or 4 times faster than if there had been no war.

We see the same thing in Africa. War-torn countries like Niger, Mali, the Central African Republic or Somalia have the highest birth rates.

The solution is curb the demographic bomb in Africa is to invest massively like Western countries did with China starting about 25 years ago and transform African economies to high growth economies where people have dreams, study hard, work hard and get richer, instead of disoccupied people whose only goal in life is to have children. I am not saying that they need to reach the level of wealth of the US or Western Europe, as that would put too much pressure on Earth's finite resources. But even in Latin America and Southeast Asia, with middle range economies, birth rates have already dropped almost to the level of rich countries. That should be the aim for Africa as soon as possible.

Bill Gates is one of the few billionaires who understood this. The first step toward reducing birth rates in Africa is to eliminate endemic children diseases like polio, malaria and diarrheal diseases, simply because a high child mortality is always linked to a higher birth rate. The second step is to educate women. Literate women are more likely to understand contraception. A country favouring the education of women also leads to more years in education, especially tertiary education, which in turn postpones childbirths and naturally lowers the number of children per woman. The third step is to create an economic boom, like in China, to make people work harder and aspire to a better life with higher living standards, which always causes people to have less children.

Keep poor countries at war and exploiting them for their resources, leaving people in misery and poverty, is the best way to cause a demographic explosion. Unfortunately it's been the dominant (unofficial, unspoken, but de facto) policy of Western countries pretty much since the end of colonialism in the 1950s and 60s. That was a very misguided policy and it must change if we are to avoid a catastrophe.

As for the question of poorer countries being able to afford an American lifestyle, there are also solutions to this problem - mostly technological solutions like vertical farming, recycling, and limiting CO2 emissions by using renewable energies. In fact Africa could easily become energy independent just with solar energy and that would have a minimal impact on global warming. They don't have to heat their homes in winter like Canadians, Americans from northern states, or North Europeans, so they don't need natural gas or petrol for that. They could wish to have air conditioning and that would be fine if it's powered by 100% solar or wind energy and they use new AC units with no refrigerants with high global warming potential like R-22 (as I explained here).
 
Last edited:
Another thing to consider. It would take 4 Earth if everyone lived like an American. But this does not mean that Americans live better lives than, say Europeans, because they use more of Earth's resources and emit more CO2. In fact, most countries follow a bell curve in the economic history. Third world countries (poor and undeveloped) have low consumption and low emissions. As they start industrialising and growing economically, countries start using more resources, but usually in an inefficient and polluting way. That's why the most polluted cities on Earth are always in developing countries. In the 1960's and 70s the air in Japanese cities was barely breathable, very much like in Chinese and Indian cities today. Then Japan adopted stricter environmental laws to keep the air cleaner, for example banning diesel engines and big trucks from cities. Developing countries typically produce electricity using cheap and dirty coal or petrol, then switch to cleaner alternatives as they become developed. Since very recently it's now cheaper to produce electricity from solar and wind than with coal or petrol, so things are changing for the better.

The reason why Americans, and even more so Canadians, are using more resources and emitting more CO2 than Europeans is that:
1) Their houses are less well isolated and North American winters are much harsher even than Scandinavia. That's actually the main reason why Canadians have higher emissions than Americans.
2) Americans drive much longer distances, with more fuel-hungry cars (like pickup trucks, which are almost inexistent in Europe).
3) Americans are much, much more reliant on cars than on cleaner public transports like trams, metros and trains.
4) Only a fraction of North Americans use bicycles to go around their city (in great part due to the lack of proper infrastructure).

25156.jpeg



5) Americans waste twice more food in average than Europeans (and six times more than the Japanese!) and recycle much less (about three times less than Germans, Dutch, Belgians, Swiss, or Austrians).

15143.jpeg


Waste_management.png


6) Americans lag behind in terms of renewable energy. As of 2022, the US produced only 11.3% of its energy from renewables, against 71% for Norway, 53% for Sweden, 48% for Brazil, 43% for Denmark and New Zealand, 37% for Austria, 33% for Switzerland, 31% for Canada, 28% for Portugal, around 20% for Spain, Germany, the United Kingdom and Ireland. Even China is at 16% now.

None of this is making the US more developed or a better place to live. Quite the contrary actually. It seems that the US is stuck with the economy and system of a developing country that doesn't want to mature into adulthood. That's almost certainly because of the oil industry lobby that throws all its weight around and pull the strings behind the scenes to prevent change in US society. Well that's only one of the reason, one that keeps lots of fuel-hungry cars on the road and encourage people to go on useless 'road trips'. When it comes to food waste and recycling, that's on private citizens. It's probably just a poor upbringing and lack of common sense.

Despite what many Americans like to think, the quality of life in the US is not that high by international standards. American cities never make it to the top 10 of The Economist's Global Liveability Ranking, or the top 25 of Monocle's Quality of Life Survey, or the top 30 of Mercer's Quality of Living Ranking (the best rated U.S. city was San Francisco, ranked 34th, while New York was ranked 44th, behind all capitals and major cities in Canada, Australia and Western Europe apart from Madrid and Rome, which aren't far behind). Nationwide, the US is ranked 16th for quality of life by Numbeo - but it is ranked 67th for safety, 62th for pollution and 35th for healthcare.

In conclusion, the world does not need to live like Americans. It's Americans who need to change and adopt more responsible attitudes. That won't lower their living standards and will in fact increase them by saving lots of money that is otherwise wasted in heating, petrol for car, wasted food, etc.
 
Last edited:
Everything in American life is based on race. The duality of (mostly) conservative whites vs a coalition of liberal whites and racial minorities. This is the result of a capitalist multi-racial country with a two-party system.

Oh it's surely the same in Europe. There are plenty of poor African and Middle Eastern immigrants and they usually vote for socialist parties that will confer them even more generous benefits. It's just that most EU countries prohibit statistics based on ethnicity or religion - probably to limit inter-ethnic clashes.

The main problem with the American political system is that there are only two main parties. So you end up with groups of completely different people supporting each party. Democrats could be wealthy high-tech workers from the Silicon Valley, Hollywood celebrities, university researchers, but just as well poor Black or Hispanic people. Republicans could be rich lawyers or stock traders, or a gun-toting, Bible-waving semi-illiterate Redneck living in a caravan, or a Bible-belt white grandma who believes that Earth is flat and that Californians will all go to hell.
 
I have long suspected that the real reason why many corporations have become highly left-wing is purely for profit.

Blacks and Hispanics spend up to 30% more than whites of comparable income on visible goods like clothing, cars and jewelry, the researchers found. This meant that, compared to white households of similar income, the typical black and Hispanic household spent $2,300 more per year on visible items.

https://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu... Hispanics spend up,per year on visible items.

Back in 2008 researchers found that Blacks and Hispanics spend 30% more than whites with comparable income on clothes, cars, and jewelry.


The rich are basically re-distributing it back to themselves via black and hispanic intermediaries. Giving large sums of money to racial minorities (and not to whites) is a way to stimulate the economy.
 
Frankly, I'm ambivalent to debates on climate, abortion, guns. What I care about most is law and order being upheld. The democrats in my opinion get a big fat F in that category. I could point to skyrocketing crime due to restorative justice DAs and judges. Law and order are the backbone of civilization. Without that, we are at the mercy of animalistic savages.
 

This thread has been viewed 8195 times.

Back
Top