2018 Midterm Elections

[carpedm9587]

I almost voted for Obama the first time he ran.

But I don't have a clue who the democrats could have put up instead of Hillary this time that I would have voted for. Certainly not Sanders. Actually this election I didn't see too any really good candidates on either side. I sort of liked Kasich, but I didn't really know much about him (or the other republican or democrat candidates) - but he made sense when he spoke and seemed like a reasonable person who held the same values I did as part of his campaign and platform. But on the Democrat side, I can't even recall any of the early candidates, and Sanders was a socialist nutjob so I would have voted Hillary over him. But Hillary herself was just so dishonest and her personality just grates on me like fingernails on a chalkboard. I had to vote for Trump. She made me.

Although there were other possible Democratic candidates most declined to run. Three withdrew before the primaries even started, and Martin O'Malley was the only one who hung in until February 2016. After that, it was Sanders/Clinton.

But I did not interpret the question asked to be limited to the candidates that ran. I thought the question was - name one Democrat you would have voted for over Trump. I'm curious too. Is there one?

[carpedm9587]

Have you stopped beating your mother?

And this is what passes for adult discourse? Holy cow - just how old ARE you...?

[JimL]

Although there were other possible Democratic candidates most declined to run. Three withdrew before the primaries even started, and Martin O'Malley was the only one who hung in until February 2016. After that, it was Sanders/Clinton.

But I did not interpret the question asked to be limited to the candidates that ran. I thought the question was - name one Democrat you would have voted for over Trump. I'm curious too. Is there one?

Well if he almost voted for Obama, over McCain, then there must be a whole bunch of democrats out there he would have voted for over Trump. Although by "almost voted for Obama" i take him to mean that he almost, mistakenly, checked off the wrong box.

[Zymologist]

And this is what passes for adult discourse? Holy cow - just how old ARE you...?

I think it was a rhetorical question...the classic "loaded question."

[carpedm9587]

I think it was a rhetorical question...the classic "loaded question."

Well - I've been guilty of "trolling" MM now and again, so I guess I can't throw too many stones. I'll have to revisit that behavior. Maybe it would be better if I just harass CP. He doesn't seem to have any cojones...




(yeah, that was pretty bad....)

[Starlight]

if we disappeared now, the free world probably would too.

Are you suggesting that the red (Europe) would inevitably lose if not for America? To who exactly? Russia has a GDP the size of Italy. It doesn't actually pose a serious threat to the combined power of the European nations.

China is more of a threat, insofar as it's got a lot more military and economic power, and has shown an interest in expansion... but it's not really geographically near any Western countries (unless you count SK or Japan). If the US disappeared and China went on an expansion rampage, there are a loooot of countries in the area it could gobble up without affecting the Western world overly greatly (Nepal, Bhutan, Thailand, Myanmar, Laos, Vietnam, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Taiwan, Philippines, North Korea, Brunei, Papua New Guinea, Indonesia, etc). There's enough of a geographical buffer zone that China could spend decades gobbling and assimilating nearby countries without causing any problems for the free world.

America is still the most important country on the planet.

I agree with that statement.

Is that your proposed definition of American Exceptionalism? Historically that doctrine seemed to have a lot to do with religion - a lot of the early preachers depicted the US as "the city on the hill" who's light would greatly further the gospel. I don't imagine Trump is currently doing much for impressing the rest of the world with regard to Christianity.

And we are the country everyone wants to go to

A lot of US conservatives don't seem to understand that all Western countries face a large influx of wannabe immigrants. This is not something specific to the US. Rather, people outside the Western world can see the Western world is pretty good by comparison and often want to move to it.

There was a very interesting survey done around the world, which asked the question of: if you could freely move to any country you wanted, what country would you move to? 86% of people said they would remain in their current country. Obviously people have families and roots and don't generally like moving. Worldwide, only 14%, or ~710 million people would move if they could. Only 1 in 5 of those people would choose to go to the US. So if all borders were opened tomorrow, the US would get ~147 million new immigrants. That is a lot, but not a number the US couldn't ultimately handle, and is far from "everyone". More people named a country in Europe as their preferred option.

As a percentage change in current population, the US would increase in population by 45% if borders were opened everywhere. Compare to:

Saudi Arabia +218%
Kuwait +198%
Australia +136%
Switzerland +136%
New Zealand +134%
Singapore +129%
Canada +120%
Cyprus +91%
Luxembourg +86%
Sweden +68%
Norway +65%
Iceland +60%
UK +53%
US +45%

There are thus 13 countries that would see a bigger population influx relative to their current population, than the US.

for opportunity and freedom.

I would say that Canada, Australia, NZ, and the Scandinavian countries have more opportunity and freedom than the US does.

[EvoUK]

I almost voted for Obama the first time he ran.

But I don't have a clue who the democrats could have put up instead of Hillary this time that I would have voted for. Certainly not Sanders. Actually this election I didn't see too any really good candidates on either side. I sort of liked Kasich, but I didn't really know much about him (or the other republican or democrat candidates) - but he made sense when he spoke and seemed like a reasonable person who held the same values I did as part of his campaign and platform. But on the Democrat side, I can't even recall any of the early candidates, and Sanders was a socialist nutjob so I would have voted Hillary over him. But Hillary herself was just so dishonest and her personality just grates on me like fingernails on a chalkboard. I had to vote for Trump. She made me.

Firstly, re-reading my post I was initially concerned you’d take it as a ‘gotcha!’ set up- I’m glad this wasn’t the case and you took the question as intended.

However, I’m afraid Carp is correct in this instance (though my tongue may turn black for saying it ) - I’m wondering if there’s any current Democrat you’d vote for over Trump?

I’m curious as you’ve said before he isn’t your ideal candidate, and there's other Republicans that you’d rather have had as an option. This makes him the ‘perfect’ example.

I’m also aware that (please correct me if I’m wrong) you consider yourself an independent, rather than a Republican. However you’re also a conservative, and thus disagree with your average Democrat platform. Is there a Democrat you’d have over Trump? Who might that person be?

[edited to add] I forgot the Obama bit. He’s so vilified around here this is unusual. Was it the initial ‘hope’ message, or something else? I don’t get the impression that (if it were possible) a choice between Obama and Trump would cause you to vote Obama, but maybe I’m wrong?

[Sparko]

Although there were other possible Democratic candidates most declined to run. Three withdrew before the primaries even started, and Martin O'Malley was the only one who hung in until February 2016. After that, it was Sanders/Clinton.

But I did not interpret the question asked to be limited to the candidates that ran. I thought the question was - name one Democrat you would have voted for over Trump. I'm curious too. Is there one?

I don't know. I don't really keep up with politicians who are not running for POTUS or who are not in the news. Most of the ones in the news are there for negative reasons, on both sides of the aisle.

but if I could pick ANY democrat, I would pick YOU Carpe.

[Sparko]

Well if he almost voted for Obama, over McCain, then there must be a whole bunch of democrats out there he would have voted for over Trump. Although by "almost voted for Obama" i take him to mean that he almost, mistakenly, checked off the wrong box.

McCain. blech.

[Sparko]

Are you suggesting that the red (Europe) would inevitably lose if not for America? To who exactly? Russia has a GDP the size of Italy. It doesn't actually pose a serious threat to the combined power of the European nations.

China is more of a threat, insofar as it's got a lot more military and economic power, and has shown an interest in expansion... but it's not really geographically near any Western countries (unless you count SK or Japan). If the US disappeared and China went on an expansion rampage, there are a loooot of countries in the area it could gobble up without affecting the Western world overly greatly (Nepal, Bhutan, Thailand, Myanmar, Laos, Vietnam, Bangladesh, Cambodia, Taiwan, Philippines, North Korea, Brunei, Papua New Guinea, Indonesia, etc). There's enough of a geographical buffer zone that China could spend decades gobbling and assimilating nearby countries without causing any problems for the free world.

I agree with that statement.

Is that your proposed definition of American Exceptionalism? Historically that doctrine seemed to have a lot to do with religion - a lot of the early preachers depicted the US as "the city on the hill" who's light would greatly further the gospel. I don't imagine Trump is currently doing much for impressing the rest of the world with regard to Christianity.

A lot of US conservatives don't seem to understand that all Western countries face a large influx of wannabe immigrants. This is not something specific to the US. Rather, people outside the Western world can see the Western world is pretty good by comparison and often want to move to it.

There was a very interesting survey done around the world, which asked the question of: if you could freely move to any country you wanted, what country would you move to? 86% of people said they would remain in their current country. Obviously people have families and roots and don't generally like moving. Worldwide, only 14%, or ~710 million people would move if they could. Only 1 in 5 of those people would choose to go to the US. So if all borders were opened tomorrow, the US would get ~147 million new immigrants. That is a lot, but not a number the US couldn't ultimately handle, and is far from "everyone". More people named a country in Europe as their preferred option.

As a percentage change in current population, the US would increase in population by 45% if borders were opened everywhere. Compare to:

Saudi Arabia +218%
Kuwait +198%
Australia +136%
Switzerland +136%
New Zealand +134%
Singapore +129%
Canada +120%
Cyprus +91%
Luxembourg +86%
Sweden +68%
Norway +65%
Iceland +60%
UK +53%
US +45%

There are thus 13 countries that would see a bigger population influx relative to their current population, than the US.

I would say that Canada, Australia, NZ, and the Scandinavian countries have more opportunity and freedom than the US does.

I love how you drag out the same chart and stats over and over.

Yes, if the USA stopped protecting the free world, both actively and as a deterrent, Europe would fall. They can't even agree with each other for more than 5 minutes much less defend each other. Britain might be able to hold its own for a while, but eventually it would fall too.

You live in a very interesting bubble, Starlight.

[carpedm9587]

I don't know. I don't really keep up with politicians who are not running for POTUS or who are not in the news. Most of the ones in the news are there for negative reasons, on both sides of the aisle.

but if I could pick ANY democrat, I would pick YOU Carpe.

Thanks for the compliment - I think. Unfortunately for you, I am not a Democrat. I may appear to be one right now because I am rooting for the Democrats to take back some control, but that is largely because government is so badly out of balance right now. In 2010, you would have thought I was a Republican. The lack of balance was in the opposite direction.

[carpedm9587]

Yes, if the USA stopped protecting the free world, both actively and as a deterrent, Europe would fall. They can't even agree with each other for more than 5 minutes much less defend each other. Britain might be able to hold its own for a while, but eventually it would fall too.

I continue to wonder why anyone sees such "what if" speculation to be of any value whatsoever. Each side will cling to its claim, and there is no way to affirm or refute either position. All it effectively does is further cement people into their existing preconceptions. Why bother. We have no idea what would actually happen if the U.S. withdrew from the world stage. It might do what Sparko thinks, or it might cause other countries to say, "oops - can't count on them anymore" and bond together in a common defense. If they do the latter, the number suggests they have the resources.

But the reality is - we won't know until (and if) it actually happens.

[Sparko]

Firstly, re-reading my post I was initially concerned you’d take it as a ‘gotcha!’ set up- I’m glad this wasn’t the case and you took the question as intended.

However, I’m afraid Carp is correct in this instance (though my tongue may turn black for saying it ) - I’m wondering if there’s any current Democrat you’d vote for over Trump?

I’m curious as you’ve said before he isn’t your ideal candidate, and there's other Republicans that you’d rather have had as an option. This makes him the ‘perfect’ example.

I’m also aware that (please correct me if I’m wrong) you consider yourself an independent, rather than a Republican. However you’re also a conservative, and thus disagree with your average Democrat platform. Is there a Democrat you’d have over Trump? Who might that person be?

[edited to add] I forgot the Obama bit. He’s so vilified around here this is unusual. Was it the initial ‘hope’ message, or something else? I don’t get the impression that (if it were possible) a choice between Obama and Trump would cause you to vote Obama, but maybe I’m wrong?

Nope I am indeed a Republican. Cow Poke is the Independent. I do consider myself more of a centrist than a complete right winger. But a bit right of center. It depends on the issues. Like I said above, I don't really know who I would vote for out of the current crop of democrats - or republicans. As we get closer to the 2020 election I will start looking at the various candidates and their records, on both sides.

In the 2008 Election where I almost voted for Obama, part of the reason was because I do not like John McCain and Obama seemed very articulate and made a lot of sense. But, I ended up not voting at all in that election because as time wore on, Obama started sounding more and more self-serving. In 2012 I voted for Romney, but I was not that impressed with him, it was more as a vote against Obama at that point because Obama did not live up to the hype and I was no longer impressed. He had basically blamed Bush for everything that went wrong with his term, and pretty much caused a lot of racial strife in the country.

[Starlight]

I love how you drag out the same chart and stats over and over.

And yet you never seem to learn from them, and instead you just repeat your easily disprovable falsehoods over and over again...

Yes, if the USA stopped protecting the free world, both actively and as a deterrent, Europe would fall.

...Like this utterly absurd claim. Who on earth would Europe fall to? The European nations have economies and militaries vastly exceeding any others except China. China would be their only serious challenge and it's on the opposite side of the world so is not a military threat.

A hundred and fifty years ago back when the US was isolationist in its foreign policies, the European nations ruled the world. Britain was the empire on which the sun never set because there were lands under its control all around the world, and the European powers divided up the entirety of Africa between them. They don't do that now only because they decided colonialism was a bad thing, not because they can't do it or don't have the power to do it.

Britain might be able to hold its own for a while, but eventually it would fall too.

Fall to who? Your delusional fantasy world is fascinating.

[Terraceth]

A hundred and fifty years ago back when the US was isolationist in its foreign policies, the European nations ruled the world. Britain was the empire on which the sun never set because there were lands under its control all around the world, and the European powers divided up the entirety of Africa between them. They don't do that now only because they decided colonialism was a bad thing, not because they can't do it or don't have the power to do it.

I'm it was just pure coincidence that they decided colonialism was a bad thing right after World War II, when they simply weren't capable of keeping it going due to being so weakened from the war.