So um, what's going to be your democratic vote?

I don’t have American citizenship so I might was well not even think about it which is convenient.

I’ve never voted in my life. Well except for one time at a wet t-shirt contest in Miami. But even if I wanted to, I couldn’t. The Constitution doesn’t apply to me.

lights cigar and grins


I liked Yang, who dropped out, and now Warren, who is not doing great. I’m in DC, so it’s very likely to be Biden v. Sanders by the time I actually have a say. If Warren is still in, I will vote for her, because I think DC will go hard for Biden and I try to vote strategically, and I think that would maximize my impact. If she’s out I might write in Yang (for similar reasons).

Between Biden and Sanders, if it all came down to me, I’d pick Biden, because I think he’s more likely to beat Trump and to have a basically normal presidency, which we need to repair our damaged institutions. I don’t particularly like Sanders policies, but worse I think he undervalues our institutions. Biden’s policies are lightly articulated and milquetoast as hell, but incrementalism in any direction is better than any kind of radicalism right now.

“Stocks Surge as Wall Street Opens Checkbooks for Biden” NYT

Or, sure, maybe it was just a coincidence. :laughing:

Joe Biden [like Barak Obama] is clearly Bilderberg material.

Come on, call it the “ruling class”, or “crony capitalism”, or “the powers that be” or “the system”. Bernie Sanders never really had a chance.

Or, as some of us have reluctantly come to accept, call it “the best of all possible worlds”. And isn’t that a grim commentary on the human condition!

Of course this is still no less an existential contraption on my part. You know, if I have any free will at all here. :wink:

It’s risky to attribute too much to a single event. Yes, Biden is much better for the economic status-quo than Sanders. But the Metaculus prediction for total COVID-19 infections and deaths in 2020 also fell yesterday, probably unrelated to an election that will not have an effect until January 2021. Both may be the result of a deal in Congress to fund COVID-19 measures which also landed yesterday.

Or it’s just that the market is super jumpy, it’s down again today.

Is this just an epithet? Neither of them are on the list of US attendees, but I don’t know how thorough that is.

This may be incidental… but trump severely defunded the cdc

None of this is an exact science.

Let’s just say that my own assessment of Joe Biden is embedded more in a broader assessment of the world we live in here:


But, again, this is no less an existential contraption than yours is. There are facts that can be ascertained about the global economy. But how we react to those facts as individuals is seen by me as more the embodiment of dasein than in something that can be encompassed [philosophically or otherwise] in an argument, assessment, analysis etc., that settles it once and for all.

Yes what You are implying is vastly more credible than not. However, such certainty, even if it becomes inversely proportional to it’s increasing in it’s metaphysical certainty, and symbolically more derivitive, looses a functional middle ground, that can be more optically clear
Substantially, it becomes a syntactical grey area, and more prone to become a overused yet defunctional shadow.
Very a-propo to merely an epithetical reminder how the jaded and cynical view politics as it should have gone .

The weakened democratic bastion of heretofore solid and connected union based regionally ( the so called solid pre-'re publican South , for instance) derived source of power.

Inversive politics displaced that certainty, by the use of pre-synthetic disqualification of ideal structures of political acuity.

I have absolutely no idea what you are attempting to argue here as it relates to Joe Biden, Barack Obama, and the Bilderberg Group.

And I’m still not even sure if your posts are not meant to be entirely ironic – a spoofing of philosophical pedantry itself. :-k

That there are vastly larger forces at work then need personalities driving political powers, who’s will has mostly lost objective criteria, in favor of optical , at times simulated structural expediency, has become commonplace and in no dire need of reconstruction.
Mostly, that structural efficacy requires constant psychologically derived mantras, that appear ironic to those who cam keep the difference between thepsychologically correct and the politically correct at bay.
Otherwise it is prime time to a.collusive underground that cam be.charged with a lot of emotional -regional baggagr, and their counterpart.

It is a sign of the times, that has reduced many from an escape from a freedom, that they , at one time to recollect to strict reliance upon invisible lines in the sand.

See, there you go again. I’m just not sure if you are doing it on purpose.

Perhaps, if purpose can be both: given the current politically ‘collusive’ climate, is hard to differentiate between irony that doesn’t fully , or intentionally borrow from some kind of fallacy inherent.

For instance, one can appear anti-Trump, and be accused of being pro trump, by giving fodder toward inverse, or contradictory argument.

Now the larger picture sees this by the Trumpets them selves., by arguing from both sides , presuming a grey middle, for Trump is really, a centrist fiscal conservative. (In essence, pseudo Kantian, arguing. from a position of what of a return to a synthetic ideology,l could have been- vis. before the Soviet fall’s denigration of the ideological material dialectic, somehow left standing it’s international anti-thesis,) bias; that of the idealistic counterpart of the romantic reactive , pre ww1 notion of unbridled pure Capitalism.

It is a.purported reconstruction, to a greatness that can be constructed anew.l, or so claimed.

So the Democratic melange with a very early socialist/Democratic movement (early 1900 type utopian socialist movements of early US unionized movements of labor) had collided early on with unbridled no holds barred capitalism, where by it garnered the conflict with the eventual outcome of the rise of authoritarianism, pretty much the same dynamic played out today.

Or think, of it is as credible way to analyze it in terms of this re vision of.
dogma, and to look at it in terms of intentionality of reductive types , focusing as effects, created by such psychological reductions: as occur between the mass psychological analysis of popular.cultural movements - toward the analytically reduced , prior precedent of basic phenomenal bracketing between the Dasein, and it’'s effects.

What is reinforced.(by You) is the effected psychologism of basic existential reaction, to the basic problem caused by the larger force fields that the ideograms of dialectics created, as the existential dilemma came about withoutv the success to solve.them

The world wars designated the struggle to create a viable synthetic between capital (producer controlled ) and labor (consumer controlled) type systems , failed to synthesize into predictable forms .( national socialism).

The prior friends (Soviets and the Western Capitalist Democracies) sustain their friendship after the war, their democratic and social/capitalistic counterparts did not level the Authoritarian ( national social) fields. The wars became anathema, and did not offer but a symbolic anti-philosophical peace, soon to expire.

The result was the Sartre -a dismissal of the synthesis, an existential regression (nihilism- unintenslded- unobjective( without social cohesion or concession to a viable lasting contract, or a goal oriented movement as reified long term into a future post.l modernism: without deliverance into quasi synthetic unity.

Comes the demise of the dialectical materialism, or that of the state controlled market, and all hell breaks loose, and the NWO arises from the ashes of non history. Now, who can say, about a democratic vote?

Okay, but: I [still] have absolutely no idea what you are attempting to argue here as it relates to Joe Biden, Barack Obama, and the Bilderberg Group.

Put it into the existentially reduced clarity of which candidate is more reflective to the national>characterisrically more determined choice, rather then the more undetermined matrix of dialectically programmed international international social model, I waited until now when the field has become more focused on the two leaders.
The historical precedents have a lot of determinitive spin, as I substantiated.
I heard the NWO is consistent of the
most effect, and some one spoke of that as the way,.
The question is not what, but how to get there with the moat legitimacy.
The Democratic choice appears to favor favor Biden, on the rebound, as not as not taking too much of a reactive ‘socialist’ line.
If Trump balances, this antivalance. That changes the formula collusively, where social flows change characteristic exact personal political
That is not new, the 2016 charge against Trump illustrated a newer trend: that of a presidential candidate without a platform