US Elections 2020

[KnightHawk 2.0]

The Republican convention is a joke. It includes speeches by every Trump child, as though they are qualified to weigh in on the direction our country is going in. It includes fear-mongering over mask wearing when we've had the worst response to covid in the entire industrialized world and are falling apart as a country. They have nothing to offer except fear and hatred as their movement is completely bereft of any underlying principles.

I really don't know what it is they're running on. Their only hope is that they convince people that Biden will support anarchy or be in favor of defunding police instead of fighting police brutality but once again that depends on misinformation. There was some suggestion that the Democratic party has strayed too far to the left, but Biden's nomination was a referendum on more radical policies that may be a tough sell for some people in this country. With Biden you get a slightly left of center agenda with a return to normalcy, both in process and rule of law. Even if you're a conservative, the alternative of racism, corruption, nepotism, and dysfunctional chaos in government should not be attractive.

Completely agree that the Republican National Convention aka Trump Enablers Convention was a joke,Donald-Jackwagon-Trump Jr,Eric-Dopey Ass-Trump,Tiffany-DADKB-Trump and Ivanka-Trustfund-Trump are just like their Demagouge And Malignant Narcissist father,stoking fear and division to rile up his delusional base,and portraying their father as a leader,which is he isn't. and none of them are qualified to weigh in on the direction the United States is going. and they are running on fear,hatred,lies,misinformation and propaganda trying to convince voters that Joe Biden is will support anarchy and defund the police,and destroy the country if he gets elected. and also agree that with Joe Biden,US Citizens will get someone who will have a plan to return the country to normalcy,both in process and rule of law.

[Stavros]

with Joe Biden,US Citizens will get someone who will have a plan to return the country to normalcy,both in process and rule of law.

You hope. The great takeway from the PoT Convention is that the wife of the rent collector from New Jersey and Under-President of the USA, Ivana (for that is her name), is the favoured successor to the Crown. Bannon may say she is 'dumb as a brick', but daddy loves her, in a manner of speaking (and we hope that's all it is, for her sake), and it is his party now.

Having seen Mitchell McConnell claiming that the Democrats are going to tell you what car you can drive, and how many burgers you can eat, with or without cheese and pickle (a detail he missed), the US appears to be moving into surreal territory, but the joke is on you, because 'they' are in fact deadly serious.

[broncofan]

You hope. The great takeway from the PoT Convention is that the wife of the rent collector from New Jersey and Under-President of the USA, Ivana (for that is her name), is the favoured successor to the Crown. Bannon may say she is 'dumb as a brick', but daddy loves her, in a manner of speaking (and we hope that's all it is, for her sake), and it is his party now.

It will be fascinating/horrifying to see what happens to this dynasty, not just 2 months from now, but 10 years down the road. Although Ivanka is the favoured successor, she is robotic, seems to lack whatever charisma her dad has although charisma is probably not the right word.

Donald, for all of his faults, has mastered the art of bullshit. He's uninhibited, able to gladhand people and pretend he knows things he doesn't and all his supporters really want is the pretense of competence combined with childish invective. Ivanka has that calculated, overly formal snobbery thing down but I actually wonder whether Donald Jr. is not the slicker operator. He's malicious, is able to parrot talking points better than his dad, and is uninhibited and aggressive in the same ridiculous way.

Ivanka may be dumb as a brick but she's smart for a Trump. I'm just not sure being slightly smarter than her Dad and brothers is actually helpful given that they have tools to take advantage of their primal stupidity.

Anyhow, I hope the entire Trump nightmare ends in November.

[Stavros]

It is probably no surprise that the President is presenting his law and order case in a simple manner with regard to American cities: Democrats run cities of crime and violence. An article in today's New York Times, offers a more complex argument with examples, and asks some basic questions, though I doubt many or any will be asked of the President, and I am sure he will not bother to answer them.
Or maybe refer to anarchists armed with cans of soup as taking over with Joe Biden's permission.

For example, why are so many big cities run by Democrats rather than by Republicans? The article suggests in many cases the Republican party has given up trying to win those cities. I could add that even when Democrats have run cities, the policies they had responsibility for were not so far from the Republican Party- Mayor Richard Daley in Chicago was not what one would calll a Progressive Democrat.

The President selects his victims, ignoring the smaller but Republican run cities where crime is rife, and ignoring the Democrat cities where crime has fallen over the last 25-30 years, for example New York and Boston. Moreover, and I ask this having no day-to-day experience of living in New York, if Republican Mayor Giuliani played an important role in reducing crime, why under successive Democrats has New York not reverted to the levels of crime and violence that were common the the 1970s and 1980s?

And as the article points out, Mayors have limited powers and limited funds,and have often been prevented from taking action to combat crime -gun violence, for example- by the Courts, and the President has launched a barrage of criticism and invective but without a single practical, policy-based solution, his only reaction so far being to actually or threaten to militarize the situation on the ground.

And of course it looks bad when people are shot dead or injured, when there are riots in the streets and shops looted and burned. Meanwhile, behind closed doors, white collar crime -most of it commtted by white people- also causes damage to people's lives. Indeed, I wonder if, rather than rob a bank at gunpoint -wearing a mask, of course!-, which these days is a crime in decline, the robbery can be done by remote control. It doesn't make for good action films, but is closer to reality.

As I say, I don't know what the reality is, I do know I felt safer at night in Manhattan in 2004 than I did in 1983, but that doesn't mean this is true for residents of all the Boroughs, as Manhattan might be an exception. Is the South Bronx still referred to as 'Fort Apache?'

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/02/u...gtype=Homepage

[MrFanti]

Other than parroting the PoT, you need to explain what you mean by 'far left', given that in the UK we have a different interpretation of the term, Trotskyists, mostly.

The "far left" here in the states are the new progressives coming into power. I.E., Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, IIhan Omar, and, Rashida Tlaib. The Kennedy and Clinton Democrats for example would have taken an early an immediate stance in the violence that's happening within the U.S. cities - all of which interestingly have Democrat mayors as well. Also, 3 Pelosi backed candidates have now lost progressive candidates as well (the latest being Pelosi backed Joseph Kennedy losing to progressives backed Ed Markey).

[MrFanti]

Also.....

As 'Black Chubby' eluded to in an earlier post, violence may very well determine who wins in November.
We are already seeing Biden and Harris whom were either silent (Biden) or sided with arrested protestors (Harris) now changing their tune and subsequently condemning violent protests.

[blackchubby38]

It is probably no surprise that the President is presenting his law and order case in a simple manner with regard to American cities: Democrats run cities of crime and violence. An article in today's New York Times, offers a more complex argument with examples, and asks some basic questions, though I doubt many or any will be asked of the President, and I am sure he will not bother to answer them.
Or maybe refer to anarchists armed with cans of soup as taking over with Joe Biden's permission.

For example, why are so many big cities run by Democrats rather than by Republicans? The article suggests in many cases the Republican party has given up trying to win those cities. I could add that even when Democrats have run cities, the policies they had responsibility for were not so far from the Republican Party- Mayor Richard Daley in Chicago was not what one would calll a Progressive Democrat.

The President selects his victims, ignoring the smaller but Republican run cities where crime is rife, and ignoring the Democrat cities where crime has fallen over the last 25-30 years, for example New York and Boston. Moreover, and I ask this having no day-to-day experience of living in New York, if Republican Mayor Giuliani played an important role in reducing crime, why under successive Democrats has New York not reverted to the levels of crime and violence that were common the the 1970s and 1980s?

And as the article points out, Mayors have limited powers and limited funds,and have often been prevented from taking action to combat crime -gun violence, for example- by the Courts, and the President has launched a barrage of criticism and invective but without a single practical, policy-based solution, his only reaction so far being to actually or threaten to militarize the situation on the ground.

And of course it looks bad when people are shot dead or injured, when there are riots in the streets and shops looted and burned. Meanwhile, behind closed doors, white collar crime -most of it commtted by white people- also causes damage to people's lives. Indeed, I wonder if, rather than rob a bank at gunpoint -wearing a mask, of course!-, which these days is a crime in decline, the robbery can be done by remote control. It doesn't make for good action films, but is closer to reality.

As I say, I don't know what the reality is, I do know I felt safer at night in Manhattan in 2004 than I did in 1983, but that doesn't mean this is true for residents of all the Boroughs, as Manhattan might be an exception. Is the South Bronx still referred to as 'Fort Apache?'

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/02/u...gtype=Homepage

No the South Bronx is still not referred to as "Fort Apache".

Also Mayor Bloomberg was a Republican/Independent when he ran the city. So the only Democratic mayor we have had since Giuliani is Deblasio and my feelings about him are already well known.


But when it comes to Trump presenting the law and order case as to the reason why he should be reelected, he is doing it for two reasons.

1. It changes the topic of discussion from Covid 19.

2. It may actually work if voters don't look at it from a long term standpoint as a reduction in crime over the past 25 years or so and they look at what's been happening in the Democratic ran cities in the wake of George Floyd's death. Or more specifically, Portland, Minneapolis, NYC, and Chicago.

There has been protests that have delved into rioting and looting going on in Portland for almost 90 days now and for whatever reason the mayor has allowed it to go on for a longer than it should have.

We all saw what happened in Minneapolis and this article goes into detail on how it happened:

http:////www.nytimes.com/2020/07/03/...rge-floyd.html


Here in NYC:

http://nypost.com/2020/08/31/nyc-pas...tings-in-2020/


Chicago:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...nificent-mile/


Finally, there was what happened in Kenosha last week.

Now we all know what precipitated the riots and that was the murder of George Floyd and the shooting of Jacob Blake. While its the important to address issues such police brutality and the appropriate use of force, there is a difference between addressing issues and overreacting to them. I apologize in advance, but that's the only word I can come up with.

I believe there was an overreaction to the death of Floyd, which led to how the police were allowed to combat the looters and rioting. Then there was the "defund the police mantra", which in turn has led to a rush to pass legislation in certain cities to address the issue of police misconduct. I believe this has contributed to rise in shootings and crime here in NYC.

Also remember this from back in June:

ACLU of Minnesota
@ACLUMN
BREAKING: Minneapolis City Council members have announced their intent to disband the Minneapolis Police Department and invest in community-led public safety.

Now while Biden has said that he isn't for defunding the police, he can't help fact that there are leaders from his party who are doing otherwise. It also doesn't help fact that two of the riots took place in battleground states.

Trump can win reelection if he is able to peel off some undecided voters who think that rioting and looting is not the answer to enacting police reform. Especially if it was their property that got destroyed.

He can do the same if he increases his support from Blacks and Latinos whose neighborhoods will be the first to suffer from defunding the police measures. Or just from the ones who also believe in law and order.

[Stavros]

The "far left" here in the states are the new progressives coming into power. I.E., Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, IIhan Omar, and, Rashida Tlaib. The Kennedy and Clinton Democrats for example would have taken an early an immediate stance in the violence that's happening within the U.S. cities - all of which interestingly have Democrat mayors as well. Also, 3 Pelosi backed candidates have now lost progressive candidates as well (the latest being Pelosi backed Joseph Kennedy losing to progressives backed Ed Markey).

Mr Fanti, you at least put 'far left' in quotation marks, because from where I am, neither AOC/the Squad nor the Democrat Party or Sanders can be considered even 'left-wing' let alone 'far left' -which to me suggests Trotskyists, and Anarchist-Communists (as opposed to Libertarians, or Utopian-Anarchists).

Yes, it suits the Republicans to demonize the DP and the Squad as Socialists who will destroy America, but you know as well as I do this is rubbish. In the first place, and I think I have pointed this out before, Democrats since Reagan have defined their politics and created policies framed by so-called 'Reaganomics' which treats taxation as a Sin against Humanity, and maintained the 'tough on crime' policies of the Clinton Presidecy which condemned petty criminilas to life imprisonment, until I believe Obama and his successor have tackled because it was both stupid and very expensive.

This article corrects the view the Squad reflect the Democrat Party as it is, even though some of the so-called Left's policies are appealing (ask yourself to whom, and why?) -the core question here is whether or not they appeal to enough voters to make a difference in November, given that absent votes from supporters of Sanders and the 'left' is claimed to be one reason why Clinton did not become President, even with 3 million more votes than the Republican.

"This may shock you, given the preposterous amount of media attention that has been lavished on those four women, but the truth is that they in no way represent the broad sentiments of grassroots Democrats nationwide — or even the sentiments of most House Democrats. In fact, the largest ideological group within the House Democratic caucus is a centrist, moderate group called the New Democrat Coalition. The coalition’s members (including Pennsylvania’s Susan Wild, Madeleine Dean and Chrissy Houlahan) predominantly hail from swing suburban districts — the same districts that went blue in 2018, toppled the GOP House majority and put the Democrats in charge".
https://whyy.org/articles/will-the-o...ver-the-cliff/

Is the 'Green New Deal' a 'far left' policy option? No. Here is how the Guadian describes it-

"The proposal outlines the broad principles of a plan simultaneously to fight inequity and tackle climate change. It does not contain policy details or advocate for specific ways of reducing greenhouse gas emissions. But with a broad brush it aims to begin to make the US carbon-neutral – net zero carbon emissions – in 10 years."
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...rtez-ed-markey

Ten years is clearly too ambitious, but that ambition is not derived from being 'too left' or any 'left', as it is broadly in line, give a decade or two- with the postion of many parties in Europe -and the point is that even Boris Johnson's Conservative Party accepts the principle of carbon emissions, but has a target of 2050 rather than 2030- Johnson's new wife is known to be a 'green' advocate, something that hard core Tories think makes Johnson a 'wet' when it comes to the environment, and there was the comical moment in June when Johnson felt he needed to declare 'I am not a Communist' owing to the extent of State intervention in the economy. But the key point is that Ocasio-Cortez may like to think she is 'left-wing' but to people like me she is a moderate who would easily fit into the Labour Party over here.

So, will the Demcrats re-commit the USA to the Paris Climate Change accords?
Will the Democrats remove the US Embassy in Israel frm Jerusalem back to Tel-Aviv?
Will the US take direct action -any action- to end Israel's siege of the Gaza District and end its illegal occupation of Palestine?
Will the Democrats commit to negotiating a global reduction of nuclear weapons, commit to a Nuclear-Free Middle East, and negotiate a major, significant reduction of conventional weapons with the Russians and the Chinese, and halt immediately any proposal to create a Space Force'?
Will the Democrats 'tear down that wall' and produce a coherent poicy on immigration, and tackle the causes of illegal immigration?
Will the Democrats campaign to legalize narcotics?
The list goes on, but don't expect anything from the Democrats that isn't safe, and designed not to upset the legions of so called 'Middle Americans' who are apparently terrified of policies that are so basic in Europe we don't use them as tools of engagement.

If you want Socialist policies, take major industries and services into public ownership -is AOC advocating that? No. Is anyone caampaigning to repeal the 2nd Amendment? Not that I know of. And why would the left, so called, be soft on immigration when most new immigrants think markets work better than States, who want less rather than more government in their lives, and have retarded views on same-sex marriage?

The Republicans can threaten America with bogus policies, even in the UK we dont have 'free health care' or 'free welfare', and even the Republicans have not declared they will end all forms of welfare if re-elected, and anyway, what is wrong with a single-payer health care system when forms of it exist across Europe, it works, and is cheaper and more efficient than the callous, immoral, profit-based business you have in the US?

Reagan established an alternative to FDR's New Deal Administation, and so far, nobody has challenged it, though AOC and her chums and Sanders have poked it about.

And if your attitudes are merely reactions to what the Republicans say, rather than being formed from a different and more rational and realistic perspective, then you will end up collapsing into the very same worthless stereoypes that Republicans rely on.

[Stavros]

No the South Bronx is still not referred to as "Fort Apache".

Also Mayor Bloomberg was a Republican/Independent when he ran the city. So the only Democratic mayor we have had since Giuliani is Deblasio and my feelings about him are already well known.


But when it comes to Trump presenting the law and order case as to the reason why he should be reelected, he is doing it for two reasons.

1. It changes the topic of discussion from Covid 19.

2. It may actually work if voters don't look at it from a long term standpoint as a reduction in crime over the past 25 years or so and they look at what's been happening in the Democratic ran cities in the wake of George Floyd's death. Or more specifically, Portland, Minneapolis, NYC, and Chicago.

There has been protests that have delved into rioting and looting going on in Portland for almost 90 days now and for whatever reason the mayor has allowed it to go on for a longer than it should have.

We all saw what happened in Minneapolis and this article goes into detail on how it happened:

http:////www.nytimes.com/2020/07/03/...rge-floyd.html


Here in NYC:

http://nypost.com/2020/08/31/nyc-pas...tings-in-2020/


Chicago:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/nation...nificent-mile/


Finally, there was what happened in Kenosha last week.

Now we all know what precipitated the riots and that was the murder of George Floyd and the shooting of Jacob Blake. While its the important to address issues such police brutality and the appropriate use of force, there is a difference between addressing issues and overreacting to them. I apologize in advance, but that's the only word I can come up with.

I believe there was an overreaction to the death of Floyd, which led to how the police were allowed to combat the looters and rioting. Then there was the "defund the police mantra", which in turn has led to a rush to pass legislation in certain cities to address the issue of police misconduct. I believe this has contributed to rise in shootings and crime here in NYC.

Also remember this from back in June:

ACLU of Minnesota
@ACLUMN
BREAKING: Minneapolis City Council members have announced their intent to disband the Minneapolis Police Department and invest in community-led public safety.

Now while Biden has said that he isn't for defunding the police, he can't help fact that there are leaders from his party who are doing otherwise. It also doesn't help fact that two of the riots took place in battleground states.

Trump can win reelection if he is able to peel off some undecided voters who think that rioting and looting is not the answer to enacting police reform. Especially if it was their property that got destroyed.

He can do the same if he increases his support from Blacks and Latinos whose neighborhoods will be the first to suffer from defunding the police measures. Or just from the ones who also believe in law and order.

Thanks for your perspectives. On one level, what often happens in elections is that the campaign is shaped by events and personalities rather than policy, and in this one, there is a lack of policy and too much personality.

Yes, personality is important. In our election last December, both major parties presented colossal spending commitments to re-generate the post-industrial North, but a key factor was the fact that most people did not like or trust Jeremy Corbyn, even though Boris Johnson is probably the least trustworthy party leader the Conservatives have ever had. It appears the choice in the US is between four more years of a foul-mouthed, ignorant bully, or Uncle Joe, who will read America bed-time stories, and be gentle and nice.

Yes, factions in the party will break out and make headlines, and the Republicans will exploit that, but given the outrageous things Republicans have said and will say, which to me are something most Americans would/should find outrageous and unacceptable too, this aspect of the campaign is there for both sides to exploit.

I just don't know how to explain the urban violence that you refer to, because it must have complex roots. I suspect on investigation, and I think this is true of Kenosha, de-industriaization has taken away a lot of the jobs that Black Americans relied on in the past, and that this marks a generational shift,noted in Europe as well as North America, that our children will be worse off than we have been.
Their grandparents had steady jobs, probably their parents, or they were in the first wave of redundancies in the 1980s-1990s. And, critically, either new jobs have been low-paid service sector jobs, or have been in small-scale manufacture that is not geographically in the places they live in.
I recall, I think it was Channel 4 News in the UK, reporting on small industries in Indiana and the owner of a trailer business who stated candidly that he needed immigrants to do jobs that locals would not do- but without making the point that if they wanted to move from Baltimore or Kenosha to Indiana, young Black people would get those jobs. As I argued a week or so ago, the geography of labour in the US might reveal something about the opportinities that are, or are not available to Black Americans, but specifically, Black Americans under 30.

Does this breed resentment that expresses itself in violence, and violence against property? To some extent I think it does, we had savage riots in the UK in 2011 and it appeared the world was coming to an end, then next year we had the Olympic Games and everyne was happy. Or so it seemed. I also wonder if decades of neglect creates in people a cynical disregard for the Government, Federal or State, and thus an indifference to the damage rioting causes.

Yes there are some on the left who use these flashpoints in an attempt to recruit young people to their organized cause, like BLM, but in the long term I don't see this being anything other than a nuisance, albeit a damaging one. Small cells of Marxist-Leninists, Trotskyists and so forth can organize demonstrations and protests and people in the heat of the moment will join in, without subscribing to the vision of a worker's paradise.

The cultural dimension, where famous people from Sports, Music and so forth give a voice to protest reflect the divisions in the country, but I don't see any concrete proposals that can be transformed into pactical policy options. How does any society end Racism? It can be tackled, it can be hedged in by the law, but as an attitude I don't know the answer, because even people much younger than me are racists, so I can't congratulate myself that my generation succeeded where ohers failed, though I do think we are less racist than we were in the 1960s and 1970s.

In the end it is mostly about jobs, and the dignity of work. The geographic shifts in the US economy since the 1970s-80s, whose roots may be in the 1960s, has left generations bereft of that dignity, and unless massive investment -but in what?- takes place, I see no solutions, as Capitalism continuously modernizes and requires less and less human labour to produce the things we consume. If the trend now is for Cities to lose their workers, only able to survive as zones of entertainment, then maybe jobs in the service sector will expand, or Cities go bust and become the war zones they threatened to become in the 1970s, with a population living on its wits fighting each other for the crumbs left on the sidewalk, ie Escape from New York as a documentary, not a feature film. But is MOMA going to re-locate to Yonkers? Will the New York Philharmonic and the Met re-locate to Woodstock?

Those are the broader issues. As for the everyday, I just hope Biden can create a sense of unity in his party, and have immediate rebuttals to what the Republicans say -and given the weird things the President is saying, I would have thought his inability to remain 'on message' and say crazy and offensive things is -or should be- a gift to Biden. So maybe in the end it is all about news management, rather than the news itself. Best of luck with that!

[Del06]

One thing missing from this thread is the possibility -- likelihood -- of a coup d'etat. Trump may well have a strategy to win votes, but his backup is a declaration of martial law, with support from his brownshirts (Patriot Boys and various other heavily armed white supremacists -- dare I say fascists?) and segments of the military. I don't see anyone seriously considering this possibility. I think it's more likely than not. And noone is talking about a response to it, or how to head it off.

BTW, Stavros, you're right, the "squad" and it's policies are not far left, except in the distorted lens of American corporate media. They are more like the "socialists" in Spain, socialist only in comparison with the PP and Vox. I.e., run of the mill social democrats, so not even really anti-capitalist.

Regarding racism, I think you've got it wrong. Change the power dynamic -- the laws and structures (e.g. red-lining real estate practices) supporting racist policies and people's attitude will change. Ibrim Kendi's got a good handle on this.