Personality Cafe banner

Who would you vote for?

  • SJ - Joe Biden

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • SJ - Donald Trump

    Votes: 4 3.7%
  • SJ - Unsure / No preference

    Votes: 3 2.8%
  • SP - Joe Biden

    Votes: 7 6.5%
  • SP - Donald Trump

    Votes: 5 4.7%
  • SP - Unsure / No preference

    Votes: 8 7.5%
  • NT - Joe Biden

    Votes: 18 16.8%
  • NT - Donald Trump

    Votes: 17 15.9%
  • NT - Unsure / No preference

    Votes: 8 7.5%
  • NF - Joe BIden

    Votes: 16 15.0%
  • NF - Donald Trump

    Votes: 14 13.1%
  • NF - Unsure / No preference

    Votes: 7 6.5%

  • Total voters
    107
121 - 140 of 171 Posts

·
Registered
Stealth Warship
Joined
·
620 Posts
I'd vote for Trump as a F- you to the establishment for suppressing the brilliant Yang, noble Gabbard and even the spineless Sanders - any of whom could have re-painted a debate stage with Trump's entrails in a tete a tete.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jaune and The Dude

·
queen of glitter gnomes
Joined
·
10,501 Posts
Biden is not the solution. But he is also not Trump.
Trump has to go.
I plan on voting for my third-choice candidate, Bernie Sanders, in the April 28th primary (New York).
I intend to vote for Biden in the general election, if he is nominated.
But without enthusiasm.
And the vote is all he gets.
I am not all in with this.
I will not put any effort into his campaign.
I would have supported Inslee or Castro with a lot of energy and enthusiasm.
They would have made for change. And I think that they would have been effective.
I like Bernie Sanders. But I think that Jay Inslee and Julian Castro would have been able to implement their programs, but I'm not convinced that Bernie is able to do so.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,489 Posts
Well, it depends on what you want. I was talking earlier today (it's evening here) to a friend of mine and she was sad because Sanders is almost decisively beaten (now Bloomberg has dropped out and is supporting Biden). And the thing is... Biden is a solution for people who have a good life, I don't mean outstanding prosperity, just a safe life with a reasonable income and who don't want the boat rocked. The thing is people like Trump or Sanders... they are revolutionaries... and revolutions mean death, blood, destruction, war, they mean innocent people lynched in the streets... chaos. How does this translate for the aforementioned people? It means their livelihood for which they worked all their life is about to be destroyed. Trump or Sanders are instability, they are danger.

Biden is the solution, because he is the familiar, they know him, he doesn't behave in random ways, with him they can trust that he won't start some random war because someone dissed him on Twitter, he is stable and predictable... which is good. And I can relate to this group. I was born in a working class family and now I'm doing well for the first time in my life. Destroying institutions like the EU or NATO would very likely mean I would have to return to poverty, maybe even be politically persecuted, as we would be forced by the Russian influence to return to corruption and dictatorship. How? Because people like Trump basically say: NATO is bad, we won't intervene in Europe, which tells Russia: invade, attack and enslave Europe. Do whatever you want with tens of millions of people! I have a good thing going... and someone like Trump, playing with the world based on his whims, is an existential threat to my well being. So I would just prefer stability and the old order. So Biden would be the solution of return to stability and safety.
And I think Trump happened because too many revolutions failed (Obama, Arab spring...the list goes on and on), and when revolutions fail, reactionaries come.
Trump is a reactionary, not a revolutionary.

However, revolution needs to happen because society is in a different state now than it was when some of these policies worked.
Biden is just biding time.
Either Trump or Bernie should win because that would ensure some bigger changes in the future.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
612 Posts
Well, it depends on what you want. I was talking earlier today (it's evening here) to a friend of mine and she was sad because Sanders is almost decisively beaten (now Bloomberg has dropped out and is supporting Biden). And the thing is... Biden is a solution for people who have a good life, I don't mean outstanding prosperity, just a safe life with a reasonable income and who don't want the boat rocked. The thing is people like Trump or Sanders... they are revolutionaries... and revolutions mean death, blood, destruction, war, they mean innocent people lynched in the streets... chaos. How does this translate for the aforementioned people? It means their livelihood for which they worked all their life is about to be destroyed. Trump or Sanders are instability, they are danger.

Biden is the solution, because he is the familiar, they know him, he doesn't behave in random ways, with him they can trust that he won't start some random war because someone dissed him on Twitter, he is stable and predictable... which is good. And I can relate to this group. I was born in a working class family and now I'm doing well for the first time in my life. Destroying institutions like the EU or NATO would very likely mean I would have to return to poverty, maybe even be politically persecuted, as we would be forced by the Russian influence to return to corruption and dictatorship. How? Because people like Trump basically say: NATO is bad, we won't intervene in Europe, which tells Russia: invade, attack and enslave Europe. Do whatever you want with tens of millions of people! I have a good thing going... and someone like Trump, playing with the world based on his whims, is an existential threat to my well being. So I would just prefer stability and the old order. So Biden would be the solution of return to stability and safety.
That's cool to see people making political commentary. I have some proposal to clarify a bit your vocabulary to have a speech which matches a bit more what's at play. You're not forced to adopt it.

The first one is to clarify what a revolution is. We have two forms of revolution, one is technological, the other is political. Here we speak of political revolutions. A revolution is at its core a rewriting of the speech of the people who preceded us, it's nothing more. Just a new justification for the actual order which was beginning to be unjustified, cause older speeches were simply obsolete. From this definition, which isn't as bloody as yours, Trump isn't revolutionary at all, and Bernie isn't a revolutionary either, well, for the most part.

What's important to notice, is that a revolution isn't a new order, it's the current order being differently justified, it leads to new dynamic which transforms the current order, but when a revolution happens, the order doesn't radicaly change. Basically, the forces which changes the society are already there, they're just waiting for a coherent justification so it propagates the actual localised changes to a bigger scale without fully loosing its coherence, so it has time to materialise itself before everyone go their own way. This is in no mean violent, cause I spoke of a set of dynamics which are already changing the society on a direction which is inclusivity, the inclusion of those actual dynamics into a justified position in the ever moving society we live in.

To have a display of violence, we require a tension: the proponents of the current justification of the actual order, and all the older ones, the ones which are due to be replaced by a revolution cause of their obsolescence, will fit that role. Now the possibility of a bloody display of violence is there. But if there were no proponents of old justifications, proponents of new justifications wouldn't make sense, basically there can't be revolutionaries without conservatives and reactionaries. As such, as the material order change in all its complexity, a distance between the speeches which either include the changes or exclude the changes grow bigger and bigger until it explodes, the violence.

We would like to judge both parties guilty of the violence, but the problem is that none actually really give a shit about them, we just want to live our own lives. But just living our own lives require to put our energy in the adaptation or the conservation of our position in society, and the more or less decency which comes with it. We all play at our level this little game, it doesn't really influence what is happening to a bigger scale, and it's impossible to rely upon all those individual behaviours. But our little game rarely destroy things, we rarely kill someone, or destroy a house, or leave our family, or our friends. Violence is basically going backward, so unless we destroy our possibilities or the possibilities of other to live decently, we go forward. To go backwards is to ultimately die, or to have our life destroyed before the actual end.

Societies always go forward until they don't, to justify all the little changes we and all the people around us are doing to make our life and the life of the ones after us, a bit more decent, is to rely first on the old speeches and then twist them so it fits what we're doing right now, not like our ancestors were doing before. And it comes a time were the old speeches simply can't keep up anymore, this is the time of revolution. And it's a good and necessary thing to do, or we become the proponents of an old justification for an order which doesn't exist anymore, as such we justify to destroy all those little things which made the life of the people a bit more decent, this the reactionary to the fascistic ways of transforming the world, because, as we all know, it was better before... Well nope, it wasn't. Conservative are just at the edge of being reactionary, they are trying to keep things as they were, fearful of the future.

The guilt of violence is mechanically on the right-wing, I'm not saying that the left is right on everything or even anything, we can't know now what is right and what isn't, unless we actually try. Cause like I said in a precedent post on this thread, we don't actually know what communism is, it has never been applied to the level of a nation, the fear of a future without state was impossible to imagine by the proponent of their so-called "communism", so they chose dictatorship. And Bernie is nothing like a communist by the way.

I'm not saying that right-wing people shouldn't say a thing by the way, I want them to actually express themselves on how they want to justify the increase of life decency of poorer people than them. What is their world view where people who are starving stop to starve. I want them to speak about the future of all the diversity we have within the societies they live in, and accross the societies of the world. Take any social identity and I want to hear what justifications you require so they have a place in this world and a decent life. Do that exercise on every social identities, and then we can speak. Cause that's an exercise we do on the left, not enough to my taste, but I would like everyone to join on this matter.

Biden is obviously a conservative, and Trump a reactionary, Bernie is on a edge between conservative and progressive politics. None of them are revolutionary, right-wing people are never revolutionary, they're counter-revolutionary, and unless there's a revolution, there can't be a counter-revolution.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
126 Posts
Tulsi Gabbard is the smartest thing in politics EVER!!!

Anybody not voting for her can go jump off a bridge...

If I could vote on a candidate like that, I'd be campaigning for her.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,489 Posts
Tulsi Gabbard is the smartest thing in politics EVER!!!

Anybody not voting for her can go jump off a bridge...

If I could vote on a candidate like that, I'd be campaigning for her.
Poor thing. Is there anyone voting for her?
 

·
queen of glitter gnomes
Joined
·
10,501 Posts
Tulsi Gabbard is the smartest thing in politics EVER!!!

Anybody not voting for her can go jump off a bridge...

If I could vote on a candidate like that, I'd be campaigning for her.
There will be a lot of people jumping off of bridges. She has gotten almost no votes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
126 Posts
There will be a lot of people jumping off of bridges. She has gotten almost no votes.
Yeah I know, sporadically I've followed some of those candidates (I never comment on politics, this IS the ONE exception). Tulsi Gabbard is just charming on a whole other level, her discourse is articulate and well thought out. She's an excellent orator and I don't see her as an unethical demagogue. I also think she has integrity.

The "jumping of bridges" was meant as a joke/cliché. I'm not proud of having written it, but I do recall the staunch militancy -and accompanying rhetoric- I've witnessed on other forums around election time, so my joke is innocuous in proportion...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,034 Posts
Election 2020...Battle of the Racist, Sexist, and Despicable Dotards.

I'd vote for Trump out of spite if/when Biden gets the nomination...if I go to vote.
 

·
chicken chaser
Joined
·
10,123 Posts
Election 2020...Battle of the Racist, Sexist, and Despicable Dotards.

I'd vote for Trump out of spite if/when Biden gets the nomination...if I go to vote.
Bernie supporter? Because that pretty much confirms what everyone else thinks of you. How was Bernie going to beat Trump if he can't even beat Biden... or Clinton.

:rolleyes: There's nothing progressive about helping Trump hurt people.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
612 Posts
He'll obviously be a socialist soon enough, oh about June, July.




Biden is a democrat, get over yourself.
I'm not using the words of politicians when I want to make a comment on political issues as it would make no sense. I'm using a set of definition which have a coherent logic, so I can compare different situation will keeping the same model and don't require to change it everytime I'm speaking of a new country or historical situation.

A democrat would want a democracy, he doesn't, neither Bernie Sanders. I never heard from the party the "democrats" that they wanted to establish a democracy, they want to keep the current system of election and how the different power interact with eachother the same. This is called a representative republic, cause there's delegation of power of the people, thus a loss of sovereignity over their life to an elite. And secondly, there's public property, a republic.

A socialist has different definition and it's hard to use that term. Even if it was an equivalent to communism before, now it's used to describe when a capitalist-liberal representative republic (the usual politico-economical model of the western countries), use the public property to redistribute part of the profit made on their land, an application of the sovereignity of the state, not the sovereignity of the people, that would be a democracy. We have sometime the term of social-democrat for those people, but as said before unless they want a democracy, we shouldn't call them democrats. Secondly it masks that those "socialist" are liberal and want to maintain a controlled form of capitalism as well as a set of liberal value, like individualism. This isn't the socialist values we tend to attribute to communism. So I think it would be better to always point out that what we call now socialists are more than often liberal in their values and for a more controlled economy, so a more sovereign republic.

I sadly in a precedent comment made an error, pointing out that we had, in the western countries, mostly capitalist-conservative republican, ultra-capitalist-liberal republican and social-liberal republican. When I used the word conservative, I speak of the values, but actually on a political spectrum from right-wing to left-wing in relation to the old order, the current order and the order to come, they're reactionary as the value of the conservative have been replaced by the liberal values, which is the new conservative set of values. If we replace conservative by reactionary, and liberal by conservative, we get capitalist-reactionary republican, ultra-capitalist-conservative republican (because they tend to destroy the republic, we could question their republicanism by the way), and social-conservative republican. I mostly think Joe Biden as an ultra-capitalist-conservative, we could put him in the social-conservative republican set, but because I use a simplification of a political model, Bernie would be on the social-conservative republican part too, and I don't see them getting well together. It's a spectrum so, we do what we can, Bernie would still be a conservative by the way, he's on the edge of progressivism.

We could argue against my analysis, and consider that if we really attach ourselves to the history of politics in the U.S. that Bernie would be a progressive, cause the U.S. being a major dying empire, it's expected to only see all political speeches far more on the right than european countries, cause no politician would like to propose to lose their political and economical grasp on latin america, africa, arabic countries or europe. Which is something they'll have to do in the future. Because they can't imagine that, they're all very much on the right, but from here, we could try to think like an american and say that's something we can't question, with other stuff that american take as granted for eternity. Anything going more toward a progressive politic, immediately makes you progressive, cause we decided to not see the effect of the dying empire on the speeches of the politicians which would makes all of them more conservative if we looked at things on a bigger scale.

So we just have a problem of definition ^^.

P.S. I forgot, it has never been seen that people, as they gain power, they turn themselves more toward progressive politics. They are often barely able to apply the envisioned progressive part of their program, and tend to make a lot of compromise with the opposition, right-winger, so Biden being a socialist soon enough? That's a joke, like unless you have redscare, none in their sanity would say that, he's liberal all the way, and with all the racist things he said, I would even personally put him as a reactionary.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
5,408 Posts
Bernie will lose, again. Biden will have Hillary-ous as VP, to replace him later when he must go out from dementia and pardon all his Ukrainian dark affair.

Mrs. President, at last.

Or so she thought because unfortunately, orangeman bad will crush that wettest dream.



Sent sans PC
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
29 Posts
I have a slight preference for Trump but probably not enough for me to vote for him if I were an American. I find most of his policies awful. Even though, politics aside, I find the guy hilarious and am a big admirer of his trolling skills.

And Biden clearly has dementia. A vote for him would pretty much be a vote for whoever he picks as his VP.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,790 Posts
Discussion Starter #138
In 2024, i will support Yang.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BroNerd

·
Registered
ENTP 3w4 so/sx
Joined
·
2,841 Posts
I'm waiting out on seeing who Biden picks as his VP.
That's going to be the real president.
Biden is deteriorating and those close to him know that better than anyone else.
However, I know that the Democrats know that.
This isn't a pro-Biden vote. It's an anti-Trump vote. Hate to say it but that's the reality of the situation.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,322 Posts
I'm a foreigner and I would vote for Donald Trump, definitely. I know that Trump isn't the most likeable person, but he is the only one who is able to bring about positive changes to the USA.

Joe Biden has a weak personality, he reminds me of Obama, and if he's a president, he wouldn't be able to bring much positive changes to the USA. Trump actually managed to create a lot more jobs as compared to Obama. An average of 17, 700 new jobs were created under Obama per month, while an average of 17, 822 new jobs were created under Trump per month. The state's overall economic output under Obama only rose 17.25 percent, while the overall economic output under Trump is up between 17.4 percent to 17.9 per cent. The state's average hourly pay under Obama is only a 7.8 percent increase, while the hourly wage has a 9.6 percent increase under Trump.
Joe Biden has the same weak personality as Obama, and if he becomes the president, this is how the economy in USA would look like. It would be very similar to the time when Obama was the president, there would be fewer new jobs being created, lower overall economic output, lower hourly pay etc.

If you want to transform the USA into a much better place, you will need someone who is strong and opinionated and able to make decisions easily such as Donald Trump to bring about those positive changes.
If a president has a weak personality, such as Joe Biden and Obama, the USA would be in huge disaster and the unemployment rate would all start to skyrocket, lol.
 
121 - 140 of 171 Posts
Top