Joe Biden or Donald Trump: Who will be better for India?

Joe Biden or Donald Trump: Who will be better for India?

  • Joe Biden

    Votes: 3 7.3%

  • Donald Trump

    Votes: 24 58.5%

  • Both will be the same

    Votes: 14 34.1%
  • Total voters
    41
Saaho said:
Lol Credibility!

Do you think Trump believes in stupid ideas like "Credibility"? Or do you think those who vote for him do so because of "Credibility"? I mean this is Trump we are talking about! The Pussy Grabbing, Russian Golden-Showering, Disinfectant Injecting, Pandemic Denying Trump! The guy literally said "I don't take any responsibility"!

No dear, his cries of Fraud are indeed losers cries but it will work like magic with his base! People always identify with a fighting losers specially the loser who was beaten by "fraud". He is making a martyr out of himself for his base. The guy who was beaten down by smooth talking politically correct college educated liberals. Nothing makes him dearer to his base than these "qualifications"! White house will be his mythical Alamo.

Also "making fool of himself". Infront of whom? World leaders? Journalists? Liberals? Those who are no his base anyways? World Media?
Ask yourself, do they even matter to him?
Click to expand...

There's his core voter base that will accept any and all of his antics. But the ones putting him in power are different, and do it for different reasons than absed on his ramblings.

His credibility is lost when he attacks institutions, not merely the media or foreigners or believes in pseudo-science and even nonsense, all that is merely politics and everyone "relevant" know that already.

He delivered in terms of economy. That's what matters most. He shouldn't attack what represents America itself, else he will lose the voters that are needed to swing elections in his favour.
 
randomradio said:
There's his core voter base that will accept any and all of his antics. But the ones putting him in power are different, and do it for different reasons than absed on his ramblings.
Click to expand...
Actually the analysis presented is that his base has increased this time in all demographics.

randomradio said:
His credibility is lost when he attacks institutions, not merely the media or foreigners or believes in pseudo-science and even nonsense, all that is merely politics and everyone "relevant" know that already.
Click to expand...
Credibility to whom?

If anything, more people voted him this time than last time.

randomradio said:
He delivered in terms of economy. That's what matters most. He shouldn't attack what represents America itself, else he will lose the voters that are needed to swing elections in his favour.
Click to expand...
There are many ways to win an election. One way is this : your opponent's base does not even feels motivated enough to vote while yours does.

One fatal flaw this time was republicans discredited vote by mail during a pandemic. Many republicans who could not go out to vote , simply did not vote. They didn't trust vote by mail a single bit.

Next time around, if there is sardonic presidency of Joe Biden, which it will be due to how democrats position themselves, there will be many far left leaning voters who will not feel motivated to vote again, opening field for new republican candidate. That candidate could be Trump or his spiritual successor.

Either trump will be a martyr who came back to life or someone else will use his "unjust treatment" to drum up support from his base.
 
Saaho said:
Actually the analysis presented is that his base has increased this time in all demographics.


Credibility to whom?

If anything, more people voted him this time than last time.
Click to expand...

That's my point. He is still credible. He will lose it if he attacks the main democratic institutions if he doesn't agree with what the court says.
 
randomradio said:
That's my point. He is still credible. He will lose it if he attacks the main democratic institutions if he doesn't agree with what the court says.
Click to expand...
Those who vote for him will vote for him almost always irrespective of courts, scientists, democratic institutions etc. Political inclination in US is more or less like a religious phenomenon. Trump's appeal was that he is anti establishment, anti institutions. He is the public face of growing disrespect and distrust of any and all institutions in America. Thats why he won in 2016 in the first place. He is popular because there is a massive number of people in America who are completely discontent with institutions like democracy(Big Politico), justice (Expensive Law) , education (Expensive Universities), economy( Big Tech, Big Agro, Big Farms, Big Banks etc ), mass media ("Fake News"), health care (Big Pharma) which they think have failed them. They don't trust any of them at one level or another.

The reason for why he does what he does is because he wants to stay in foreground and be the voice of discontent. He says what his base cannot say in public due to fear of repercussions. If he goes and shows middle finger to judge in a court room, his voters will love him. If he slaps an experts like Dr. Fauchi in public, his voters will love it. If he tears few pages out of constitution and calls them liberal abomination, his voters will love him. What will undo him is if he fades in background.

For his new victory, one way is: he need to keep his base and ensure that his opponent's base is less motivated than his. This is what worked in 2016.

Good thing for him is if his opponents, ie, democrat are somewhat self defeating due to their own limitation, their big tent politics and its inherent contradictions.
 
Saaho said:
Those who vote for him will vote for him almost always irrespective of courts, scientists, democratic institutions etc. Political inclination in US is more or less like a religious phenomenon. Trump's appeal was that he is anti establishment, anti institutions. He is the public face of growing disrespect and distrust of any and all institutions in America. Thats why he won in 2016 in the first place. He is popular because there is a massive number of people in America who are completely discontent with institutions like democracy(Big Politico), justice (Expensive Law) , education (Expensive Universities), economy( Big Tech, Big Agro, Big Farms, Big Banks etc ), mass media ("Fake News"), health care (Big Pharma) which they think have failed them. They don't trust any of them at one level or another.

The reason for why he does what he does is because he wants to stay in foreground and be the voice of discontent. He says what his base cannot say in public due to fear of repercussions. If he goes and shows middle finger to judge in a court room, his voters will love him. If he slaps an experts like Dr. Fauchi in public, his voters will love it. If he tears few pages out of constitution and calls them liberal abomination, his voters will love him. What will undo him is if he fades in background.

For his new victory, one way is: he need to keep his base and ensure that his opponent's base is less motivated than his. This is what worked in 2016.

Good thing for him is if his opponents, ie, democrat are somewhat self defeating due to their own limitation, their big tent politics and its inherent contradictions.
Click to expand...

All that would be true if he had won. But he didn't, because he couldn't attract those who do not approve of his behaviour. Logic says the majority of the people did not like all of his shenanigans, hence did not vote for him.

Purely based on the economic impact of his presidency, he should have won by a landslide bigger than Obama did. So if he wants to be president again, he's going to have to temper and discipline himself.
 
randomradio said:
All that would be true if he had won. But he didn't, because he couldn't attract those who do not approve of his behaviour. Logic says the majority of the people did not like all of his shenanigans, hence did not vote for him.
Click to expand...
Okay few things :

1. Majority (by a small margin, 5-10%) most probably does not like him. Thats not contested. Thats a given. It was true back in 2016 as well. He lost popular vote back then too.

2. He lost election. This is a fact. No contest at all.

However what does not follow is this

Majority Hates Him ----this is why----> He lost election.

OR

He lost election ----this is why----> Majority hates him.


This is not necessarily true because of electoral college system. Also, even if he is hated by majority, that majority may not vote collectively (as it happened in 2016, a lot of democrat vote was suppressed) he still won.

If winning the election is the goal, you DO NOT need approval of majority. What you need is that enough people do not vote for opposition so that you win in an electoral college. Its the electoral college which decides victory not the popular vote.

He does not and perhaps should not seek a popular vote victory. Thats not his game. He should seek to appeal to his base and find ways to sabotage the "big tent" of democrats by exploiting the inherent contradiction which a "big tent" strategy of democrats bring.
 
Saaho said:
Okay few things :

1. Majority (by a small margin, 5-10%) most probably does not like him. Thats not contested. Thats a given. It was true back in 2016 as well. He lost popular vote back then too.

2. He lost election. This is a fact. No contest at all.

However what does not follow is this

Majority Hates Him ----this is why----> He lost election.

OR

He lost election ----this is why----> Majority hates him.


This is not necessarily true because of electoral college system. Also, even if he is hated by majority, that majority may not vote collectively (as it happened in 2016, a lot of democrat vote was suppressed) he still won.

If winning the election is the goal, you DO NOT need approval of majority. What you need is that enough people do not vote for opposition so that you win in an electoral college. Its the electoral college which decides victory not the popular vote.

He does not and perhaps should not seek a popular vote victory. Thats not his game. He should seek to appeal to his base and find ways to sabotage the "big tent" of democrats by exploiting the inherent contradiction which a "big tent" strategy of democrats bring.
Click to expand...

Why would you love or hate someone if you want to vote for that person. Only fanatics think like that. For most people it's about real stuff that a candidate is offering.
 
randomradio said:
Why would you love or hate someone if you want to vote for that person. Only fanatics think like that. For most people it's about real stuff that a candidate is offering.
Click to expand...
Errr.... it does not work that way for most of voters. May be for highly logical voters it may, but most of the voting and other things like markets are sentimental.

Eg. Boris Johnson in UK got a boost in popularity just because he got sick with covid. There was no good logical reason for that boost or about any more real stuff they are offering, but he still got a boost in popularity. Real People ... are irrational. A lot of times.

This is why they choose not to vote when they must vote, simply because they don't like a candidate. Even though candidate's policies may be very much in their favour, or atleast would limit harm than other contingency. A leader must "connect" with his/her base. Biden from the same democratic base got better response from white college educated males than Hillary in many parts of Pennsylvania and Michigan, from what I am hearing. They are saying that he "connects" better with that demographic than Hillary does. Its a more of a sentimental thing than a purely policy issue.
 
Last edited:
Saaho said:
I prefer rafales too but politics is not the reason. Its basically a better plane, from a reliable supplier and unencumbered of entanglements.

Thought I would have preferred a platform in mass numbers which can wield quality weapons from western manufacturers. Rafale will be hard to induct in massive numbers due to its cost.

May be we should have gone for a radar from Selex instead of elbit. We might have bought Meteor or AIM120D for Tejas.
Click to expand...
We can still integrate aim 120 on the tejas. It will make even mk 1 tejas pretty formidable if we integrate c7 with it Israeli radars can be integrated with the missile. Though we miss out on meteor. The KAI F-50 uses amraam and it has the el 2032 as it's radar..
 
  • Informative
Reactions: JustCurious
Saaho said:
Errr.... it does not work that way for most of voters. May be for highly logical voters it may, but most of the voting and other things like markets are sentimental.

Eg. Boris Johnson in UK got a boost in popularity just because he got sick with covid. There was no good logical reason for that boost or about any more real stuff they are offering, but he still got a boost in popularity. Real People ... are irrational. A lot of times.

This is why they choose not to vote when they must vote, simply because they don't like a candidate. Even though candidate's policies may be very much in their favour, or atleast would limit harm than other contingency. A leader must "connect" with his/her base. Biden from the same democratic base got better response from white college educated males than Hillary in many parts of Pennsylvania and Michigan, from what I am hearing. They are saying that he "connects" better with that demographic than Hillary does. Its a more of a sentimental thing than a purely policy issue.
Click to expand...

You are trying to relate different issues with different things. You won't get away with attacking institutions in democracies. The US has an educated population. Calling the media fake is fun, saying the supreme court is sold-out won't be. It attacks the very sentiments you are trying to bring up.

My point is if Trump ends up attacking SCOTUS if he loses, he's going to end up with egg on his face.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: Bali78 and Picdelamirand-oil
randomradio said:
You are trying to relate different issues with different things. You won't get away with attacking institutions in democracies. The US has an educated population. Calling the media fake is fun, saying the supreme court is sold-out won't be. It attacks the very sentiments you are trying to bring up.

My point is if Trump ends up attacking SCOTUS if he loses, he's going to end up with egg on his face.
Click to expand...
You don’t know a thing about US population. Educated ?? Respect about institutions?? Do not judge US by watching Hollywood movies. Reality is a lot different from what you read/watch in media.
 
Bali78 said:
You don’t know a thing about US population. Educated ?? Respect about institutions?? Do not judge US by watching Hollywood movies. Reality is a lot different from what you read/watch in media.
Click to expand...

There are three groups of people.

One group is the equivalent of Trump. And one group is the opposite of Trump. So one always votes Republican and the other votes Democrat.

The last one is the one that decides whether to vote in Trump or not. This group is intelligent enough to know who to support and when. Which is why the US always deals with anti-incumbency on a regular basis. And if either the Republicans or Democrats need to get into power, they need to attract this group the most. This group correctly decided Clinton was a hack in 2016 while at the same time voted Obama to power in 2008. And the way things have gone, this group has shown itself to be rational at most times. If you fail to attract this group, as Trump failed in doing, you lose.

The problem is people never ever see this third group, not in the media, not in the movies and definitely not in social media, simply because this group is really boring to be in the spotlight. This group is practically invisible, impossible to point in a crowd and is never seen or heard, but represents everything that's good with America. This group is educated, not easily fooled, and does not have any loyalty to either party. This group does not care whether you are a Democrat or a Republican as long as you are bringing something this group needs. This group is only composed of opportunists. Which is why this group was attracted by Obama's Change and Trump's MAGA. And this time they were disillusioned by Trump's antics because he ended up pandering to his core voting base instead of pandering to this group. This groups votes a person to power, not a party. And due to some lucky quirk of fate, some members of this group ended up in the right parts of the country that allows their vote to become important enough that they are the ones who end up steering America's fate.

Since this group has no loyalty towards either party, automatically an attack on America's democratic institutions will not be tolerated since that's where the loyalty lies. If Trump attacks SCOTUS, this group will never vote him to power no matter how many more new MAGA speeches are made.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Golden_Rule
randomradio said:
You are trying to relate different issues with different things.
Click to expand...
Errr.... which different issue? Unless you are suggesting that modern democratic elections are not based on popularity majorly but something else?


randomradio said:
You won't get away with attacking institutions in democracies.
Click to expand...
Au Contraie, that is pretty popular in USA especially these days and especially among trump voters and leftists.

randomradio said:
The US has an educated population.
Click to expand...
Qualify educated. High school? Some Bachelor? Bachelor in STEM/Medicine/Law? Bachelor in some weird Liberal arts? Bachelor in Business?

randomradio said:
Calling the media fake is fun, saying the supreme court is sold-out won't be.
Click to expand...
Errr... there are ways to do this. Which I will show you in a moment.

randomradio said:
It attacks the very sentiments you are trying to bring up.

My point is if Trump ends up attacking SCOTUS if he loses, he's going to end up with egg on his face.
Click to expand...
First, the sentiments of majority of US is not with "institutions".

But even before that. Check this out.

- "US supreme court is anti American and should be destroyed."

- "US supreme court has been highjacked by democrats and has been stuffed with liberal judges who are perverting justice, trampling constitution, abetting with a fraud while IGNORING their SACRED duty to God, PEOPLE and these UNITED STATES OF AMERICA."


One of the above is exactly what you are saying : attacking "institutions". Another is not. Another is a different beast.

You don't attack abstract concepts. You attack people. Abstract concepts like institutions do not invoke a reaction. A corrupt liberal judge does. Attack a judge is not attacking the Instution. Its saving that institution. After all media lampoons Trump all the time without actually attacking the sacred chair of President. Its the same playbook.
 
Last edited:
randomradio said:
There are three groups of people.

One group is the equivalent of Trump. And one group is the opposite of Trump. So one always votes Republican and the other votes Democrat.

The last one is the one that decides whether to vote in Trump or not. This group is intelligent enough to know who to support and when. Which is why the US always deals with anti-incumbency on a regular basis. And if either the Republicans or Democrats need to get into power, they need to attract this group the most. This group correctly decided Clinton was a hack in 2016 while at the same time voted Obama to power in 2008. And the way things have gone, this group has shown itself to be rational at most times. If you fail to attract this group, as Trump failed in doing, you lose.
Click to expand...

Okay, first few factual corrections :

1. There are swing states in USA. People in USA do register to one party or another. While they are not obliged to vote for the party they register for, they do vote on the part lines.

2. US actually have "pro-incumbency" when dealing with getting a second term. Presidents often get the second term.

3. Its worth repeating this : There are swing states in USA more than swing voters. It is important to understand this otherwise you will be confused why things happen the way they happen.

For instance : When you say "This group correctly decided Clinton was a hack in 2016 while at the same time voted Obama to power in 2008.". You are wrong. Why? Because Clinton WON the popular vote. She HAD more votes than Trump. What tanked her was electoral college. It was swing states that caused her defeat NOT the "rational, educated" people whom you are referring to. She lost Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania. Not exactly the bastions of education and reason. The states with HIGHEST "educated rationals" like Calif and Washington voted for her and her only (http://usnews.com/news/best-states/rankings/education/higher-education).

The key to understanding US presential elections is to understand this weird system called electoral college and how few states swing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Aurora
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom