You seem like a smart person Mnementh and I've enjoyed our chats but I'm sorry, this dude is awful.

• Dismantle the U.S. empire
• Slash the bloated U.S. military budget 
• Disband NATO
• Expeditious and responsible closure of global U.S. military bases - AFRICOM, etc.
• Cease all war funding and weapons to Ukraine and invest in peacemaking

This basically amounts to "Let Russia slaughter the Ukrainians"

To begin with though, voting 3rd party in America is basically throwing your vote away in the presidential elections. That aside, while Cornel may have some good domestic policies, his foreign policy is atrocious, in fact it would be easy to argue that even Trump has a better foreign policy that Cornel, at least Trump isn't shouting the quiet part out loud! (That he wants to disband NATO, they both do, Trump just isn't as explicit about it).

I wouldn't say voting for Cornel West keeps anyone with a clear conscience, thanks largely due to his horrific foreign policy. He reminds me of Corbyn, I loved him and I wanted him to win the general election but I was vaguely unaware of his awful foreign policy, especially about Ukraine/Russia and once I was aware, it put me off him instantly, to the point that I'm glad he didn't win now and I despise the Tories, Lol.

There's a portion of the far left like Cornel/Corbyn who despise America's imperialism so much that they willingly make excuses for other imperialist countries, they spread their propaganda so easily, they willingly look the other way at atrocities that other countries commit because "America bad" and their entire logic boils down to "America doesn't like this country so this country must be good"

And absolutely none of them have any idea on how to get "peace" in Ukraine, simply saying "I'll bring peace" doesn't mean a damn thing, especially when Putin has shown zero interest in peace. I'm pretty sure these guys don't actually want peace though, they just want Ukraine to go die quietly in a corner where they can't hear it. Unless they believe somehow that letting Russia slaughter millions is peace.

Just because you ignore it, doesn't make it peace.

I agree his foreign policies might not be the best, but I actually think the US is too much involved in global politics. Many US politicians think that they and only they are able to sort out world politics and mostly with military means. I would prefer to move that power to multinational bodies, namely the UN. The NATO in my opinion is not well equipped to handle a post-cold-war era world, as a cold-war-era organization that will be seen (rightfully so) as biased towards big western countries. But multinational organizations, the UN have general much more trust in the world.

I do think the stuff that Cornel says is mostly good, but not just for overnight decisions. Say disbandind the NATO is fine, but not tomorrow, instead after the UN has taken more responsibility in this regard. And regardless how radical Cornel sounds, he will not be able to change US foreign politics overnight. So yes, I would like to see more focus on international organization in conjunction to the powerdown of military focused politics, but I don't think much damage will be done shortterm.

His focus will be domestic politics anyways and as you see, these are pretty good.

Might not be the best is putting it lightly, his foreign policy is horrific, Lol.

Slash the bloated U.S. military budget 

This one I would be okay with if only because USA's military budget dwarfs their closest rivals, Lol. They could cut back and still massively beat China and Russia in spending. Having said that, Russia has shown us that we still need strong militaries, that we still need to spend on our militaries, Russia has shown us unfortunately that we still need nukes.

Disband NATO

How is America meant to disband NATO? America can leave NATO but they can't disband it, Lol.

I also find it hugely ironic how Cornel West, upset at America interfering with other countries, has as one of his campaign policies not to leave NATO but to disband it, taking away agency of 31 other countries to decide whether they want to remain part of NATO or not, no America gets to decide whether all those countries want to remain in NATO according to Cornel West, who hates America interfering with other countries, Lol.

Once again, Russia has shown us the importance that NATO still holds, if Ukraine was in NATO it wouldn't be getting slaughtered right now, if America wants to abandon NATO then that's their choice but it also means abandoning your European allies who want you in NATO. It means putting Europe further at risk of Russian aggression.

It isolates America and shows to all of America's allies that America won't defend them, let me say as trash as America's foreign policy has been at times, especially in regards to things like supporting Israel so heavily, America straight up abandoning all its allies from a military standpoint will cause even more wars.

Is Cornel that naïve to believe that China wouldn't invade Taiwan the moment they realise America won't defend them militarily? That North Korea won't attack South Korea? That Russia wouldn't push further into Europe? America has actual defence pacts with certain countries that Cornel wants to rip apart and show that an alliance with America doesn't mean a damn thing.

Think of all the countries licking their lips knowing that America won't come to the defence of a country they want to invade now.

Expeditious and responsible closure of global U.S. military bases - AFRICOM, etc.

As I said above, they act as a deterrent in some areas, some can be closed but some are not only needed as a deterrent but also wanted by the country who is hosting the American military base.

Cease all war funding and weapons to Ukraine and invest in peacemaking

Addressed this in my response above, can be summed us as "let Ukraine die"

Think Cornel believes this is how it would go...

• Cornel: "Please stop doing this Putin"
• Putin: "Okay, since you asked nicely, I'll stop killing Ukrainians"

Lol. That tactic worked brilliantly on Hitler, it worked brilliantly the 200 times we already tried it on Putin and pleaded with him to stop, I don't know how anyone can say we didn't try with Putin when we practically had Macron on his hands and knees begging Putin to stop at the start of the war. When we spend months of debating weapons to send Ukraine to defend themselves because we're scared about Putin's reaction.

---

I too once shouted about how we should take away all nukes because "Russia will never attack us" and nobody is a threat to us, saying how we should massively cut back on military spending because we aren't at risk, I never went as far to say that NATO should be disbanded but Russia's invasion has made me completely reverse course on the rest of those issues and realise how foolish I was.

And now I'm at the point where if America abandoned NATO, I will never see America as an ally to the UK/Europe ever again, coming from someone who has heavily criticised America's foreign policy in the past, for once, America does the right thing foreign policy wise and leftists want them to stop, cause no matter what America does, it's all bad and Russia the fascist hellhole must be good because it dislikes America.

And if America abandons Ukraine, therefore abandoning Europe by extension, then I hope UK turns their back on America and further aligns themselves with Europe, if America wants to become an isolationist country then be an isolationist country but they shouldn't be surprised when many countries in Europe despise America in the future, are we going to ignore once again the pleas of our Baltic/Eastern/Central allies?

Many US politicians think that they and only they are able to sort out world politics and mostly with military means.

None of this applies to Ukraine though, America and Europe tried their best to stop Russia from invading via words, then via sanctions and they dragged their feet on military support. America's intelligence on the matter was spot on whilst Germany's was horribly bad. But still we drag our feet on supporting Ukraine with weaponry (I.E. Military Means) INCLUDING the United States because they are afraid of "escalation", America/Western Europe have consistently been cowards in this matter while Eastern/Central Europe have actually been the only ones showing some balls because they realise what is at stake if Russia wins.

I would prefer to move that power to multinational bodies, namely the UN

Eh...UN has proven itself useless during the entire course of Ukraine's war and now during the Israel/Gaza war, the UN is a toothless organisation and a bit of a joke when it has countries as permanent members constantly vetoing against condemnations of awful acts they're either performing or supporting. The UN has no real power to do anything and telling a country to kindly stop...doesn't do a thing.

The UN can't enforce their demands and so countries don't need to listen to them.

Counterpoint, I don't really think we ever left the "cold-war" mentality between West and Russia, instead Russia was just biding its time by pretending to be nice, NATO is absolutely the best thing to handle Russia's current aggression at this moment, if Ukraine was in NATO it wouldn't be getting slaughtered right now and Moldova will be next, Georgia will be next.

Personally speaking, I have a lot more trust in NATO right now than the UN.

And I'm not sure what you mean by bias, would you like to see NATO expand beyond the western countries? Cause I would be in favour of that but it doesn't really fit with its name, Lol. America has defence pacts with South Korea and Japan anyway and NATO is primarily a defence against Russia who are proving to still be a threat to Europe.

I can't even see a future where saying disbanding NATO would be fine right now, not until Putin dies and Russia goes through a complete societal change from the ground up, I certainly can't see that happening in my lifetime. It took the complete military defeat and occupation of countries like Germany and Japan to change their mindset post-WW2 which is something that obviously can't be done with Russia.

What responsibility could UN even take which wouldn't just make them "NATO but with a different name" to enforce their demands on other countries?

I don't think much damage will be done shortterm.

Foreign policy wise, Cornel and Trump could do horrific damage in the short-term, they can't disband NATO but they can leave it, they can choose to abandon Ukraine and without America's military support, Ukraine will likely lose and when Putin realises that, no amount of pleading and kissing his feet, begging him not to be a big meanie head, will stop him from taking the rest of Ukraine, why the hell would he when he knows he can get it all now? That would result in hundreds of thousands more Ukrainians dead and millions of Ukrainians fleeing into European countries permanently, an entire country lost, an entire culture, they can very easily happen in 4 years without America's support.

And when Ukraine is done with, Moldova will be next.

Tbh though at the end of the day, like I said, voting Cornel would essentially be throwing your vote away.

I'd gladly say that he has a 0% chance of winning, not a 0.1% chance, a straight 0% chance, Lol.

I at least appreciate a link, but I could've just done that if I wanted.
No matter I'll take a look at it later, since I am working on others things at the moment. :)

Also I fully support your opinion to vote for who you want. Doesn't matter if it's Democratic, Republican, or third party, YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO VOTE as a nationalized citizen of the USA.

The only thing I may say is that I hope you are able to look at what each candidate says they will do, what they have done, and how those things done have affected out life (for better or for worse). See how closely they line up with your values. That is the purpose of this forum, to understand what each candidates values are. Be an educated voter. If you can do that then I have no trouble with your voting position. (If you do announce it, I'll also do my research on them and try to understand your position).

Why is politics the only profession that people don’t want people to have a career in it?

Imagine that line of thinking for any other profession, “we don’t need career teachers at this school!”, “this hospital is filled with career doctors!”, “I bet this bridge was designed by career engineers!”

Biden being a congressman for decades did in fact help get meaningful legislation passed with a very slim majority in the House and tied Senate. Unfortunately, lunatics took over the House and that put an end to any meaningful legislation this term.

You’re asking why I think West can’t get major bills passed but I think the better question is, why do you think he can? If you like West’s proposals more than Biden’s, that’s fine, but if Biden had to fight tooth and nail to get these things passed in a very divided Congress, what makes you think someone far more left-leaning would be able to enact their agenda?

I looked at West’s Party Platform and how does he plan on “abolishing poverty” or “abolishing homelessness”. Biden couldn’t get Congress to pass a $15 minimum wage, how is West going to succeed in passing a $27 minimum wage? We needed a reconciliation bill that had zero Republican support to allow Medicare to negotiate drug prices, but somehow West is going to successfully “nationalize the healthcare industry”. Who in Congress is going to go along with his plan for reparations? Biden couldn’t get Congress to pass tuition free community college so how will West get them to pass tuition free admission to all state and community colleges? Biden’s student debt cancellation was blocked by the Supreme Court, how will West get it through? I could go on.

I like some of his ideas too but that’s all they are and will never come to pass.

I hope Biden wins, but I fear Trump will become president again. Hopefully the world has learned what that means and is ready to deal with that.

The lack of effective action on these issues is because of our brand of Capitalism and our lobbying laws.  They are also more the realm of the Legislative branch rather than the Executive branch. But even with that in mind, there is too much money to be made in keeping things the way they are than solving the problems.

Better stated, the priorities of the US government isn't to solve social problems but to better enable profit from them.  Why else would we have inane concepts such as private prisons?

I feel the opposite.  Trump's win in 2016 was due to him being largely an afterthought by Democrats (and them having their own punching bag for a candidate). His loss in 2020 was because enough people from both sides saw how unhinged and dangerous he was.  His loss in 2024 will be an extension of 2020. He has a base that is loud but he has a shrinking middle that is discouraged by everything he says and does.  Biden also has a base (though smaller) but he has not done enough negatively to lose his middle as much as Trump has.

OK, I will not answer everything in detail. But I think you want problems in the world that indeed are bad should be solved by the old means (mainly military) that are the reason these problems cropped up in the first place. I think you can't control a fire by burning down the house.

Let me explain. The US does not only have direct influence over the politics of other countries, as the or one of the dominating forces in the world for around 100 years now it has a lot of indirect influence, which means countries look at what the US does and make their conclusions based on that. What can be consistently viewed from the world is, that the US is using military solutions to solve their problems all over the world for many decades now and even with no direct military involvement uses the might of their forces to get their way. And other countries take notice. China has a quite small military, compared with it's geographic, demographic or economic size. Yet Xi Yinping took notice and is expanding the size of the military for some time now. It will take more time, but as China is bigger than the US, it will inevitably end up with a bigger military, rendering the politics the US did for the last 100 years as pointless, as it relied on being the biggest military power. But the US cannot win a cold war against China, because China is so big and also because the US ruins iutself domestically. The ignorance of the internal problems will also make them weaker in foreign politics.

If we look at current problems: Putin has built the military for a long time now. True, Russia had a lot of military left over from the cold war, but the cold war had ruined them and they were willing to reduce weaponry to focus more on economic growth. In the pre-Putin era there were multiple treaties between the Soviet Union/Russia and the US for reduction of weaponry, most notably START and SALT (which includes ABM).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/START_I

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Arms_Limitation_Talks

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Ballistic_Missile_Treaty

That ended with George W. Bush who retreated from ABM in 2002. The Duma (russian parliament) had ratified START II under the condition that the US respects the ABM, so that killed START as well. That is the start of Putins presidency. Putin and Bush made a new contract (SORT), which was considerably weaker than the ones before. In the following years the US seeked to improve strategically on their military capabilities and voided all efforts for disarmament and gave Putin room to grow the russian military as well with the goal to take control of the former soviet influence sphere by military means. This sphere includes Ukraine.

So yes, the politics you and many others want to use to solve the invasion in the Ukraine is cause for these problems in the first place. And not only there, as I said before other countries like China seek also military power, simply as the US shows how they can use it. I would prefer a world that is going back to disarmament treaties like after the cold war and would this time include new powers like China and India and regional powers like Saudi-Arabia.

The NATO bears the same problem. It is a hammer in a world that need more soft solutions. The NATO is designed by principle to protect the interests of North American and european countries. Africa, South America and Asia are for the most part out of the equation here and basically see themself opposed by this military alliance. No wonder they seek their own military power to counter it. You say the UN is toothless. But it is so because the NATO powers make sure the UN never gains more influence. NATO powers have often opposed UN solutions and instead stepped in as NATO to solve problems with military. The UN had not the opportunity to built up their own forces and they are sidestepped if the NATO want to directly deal with stuff. So the weakness of the UN is a result of the existance of the NATO. But as the NATO is one-sided everyone outside wants to grow their own military power as they are potentially targetted by NATO if they ever cross the interests of the US or western europe. So the existance of the NATO brews military conflict. If instead the regulating force is internationally controlled other countries wouldn't have the need to grow their own military to counter them, as they are part of it and part of the decision making. So yes, for a safer world NATO needs to disband. Not over night obviously, it has to be reduced in power step by step with the UN growing power in accordance.

Overall your band-aid (and that of many politicians) to problems resulting of these military centered politics is more military centered politics. And if these exact politics lead to more problems they say: "See, we need that military." That is putting oil in the fire, it is no sufficient solution.

Also I want to add, that domestic issues also have a massive influence world wide. As I said, the US is a dominating force, that does not mean military alone, but also economics or cultural leadership (Hollywood is still dominating most screens in the world). The domestic issues are well-known in the world and also the inability to address them. It is visible that things get worse and worse for around 30 years by now. This does embolden people opposing democratic and human rights values, as they squarely point to the US and say: see, it is shit.

So the US needs to get their shit together and not by more violence, but by sustainable solutions. I don't see Trump or Biden or Kennedy offering any of this.

Does anyone here believe the 2020 election was legitimate?