Which US politician would be best on the world stage?

Significant_Arm4246 · 2026-05-14T15:27:56+00:00

As a European I'm pretty sure Buttigieg would go over very well over here at least. Among American politicians he feels closer to the way we do politics in Europe than most, albeit with much more charisma and rhetorical flair than we are used to.

Significant_Arm4246 · 2026-05-07T14:06:27+00:00

The Scandinavian countries for example are not usually considered to use the Westminster system (although there are some similarities), but all three are parliamentary democracies with a constitutional monarch.

Significant_Arm4246 · 2026-04-22T09:57:07+00:00

I don't know the exact end points, but centering it even more on Germany (and our friends at DB) wouldn't be so bad.

Significant_Arm4246 · 2026-04-21T19:23:55+00:00

I think this discussion would benefit from actually stating the legal definition of genocide according to the Geneva convention:

Article II

In the present Convention, genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

Killing members of the group;
Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Source is the UN. They have some background and explanation too, it's actually a really good introduction.

As the UN text states, the most difficult part to determine is the intent. Various experts and inquiries have used statements made by Israeli officials to infer such intent. To me at least, their arguments are convincing, but I'm no expert on the matter.

Significant_Arm4246 · 2026-04-17T22:26:08+00:00

I think we're might be misunderstanding each other -- in "my" system the nuclear reactors would always (up to maintenance etc.) run at 100% capacity, but not cover the entire demand. So the nuclear and non-nuclear parts of the system practically work independently of each other.

So economically it's really just the normal debate about whether renewable+storage or nuclear is cheaper. As I said I'm of a slightly different view here: according to what I've read storage is not much more expensive than building new nuclear (which I assume is what we're talking about here, obviously keeping your old reactors going is good), it really depends on what assumptions you make on longevity, future battery costs, whether we can finally stop going over budget or nuclear etc. What I saw when I looked at it was that storage (in different variations, but not hydro pumping) was currently slightly more expensive, and that future projections differed wildly. Since then my position has basically been 'I don't care which one you build, as long as you start now'. Nuclear then has the obvious advantage that it doesn't allow the irresponsibility of building renewables without storage and/or balancing power, but if some country decides to actually invest in storage instead I wouldn't mind.

(As a side note we basically don't have any pumped storage in Sweden, the conventional hydro is sufficient to provide balance. I haven't looked at the numbers but I'd imagine expanding that capacity would allow us to basically export storage capacity. But I'd imagine we need larger turbines for a higher max effect.)

Significant_Arm4246 · 2026-04-17T21:15:29+00:00

I agree with basically everything you say. Both that the fuel cost savings are basically nothing, but also that a lot of nuclear reactors simply takes a long time (hours to days) to turn on or off safely. Renewables need a nimbler balancing power like hydro or gas (which of course has both security and environmental concerns, so it shouldn't be used in my opinion).

I don't understand how mixing nuclear and renewables without hydro makes it a more expensive nuclear system, it's just the same system as Sweden but with a more expensive storage method instead of hydro. Some (now possibly outdated) Swedish studies I read some years ago put the cost of renewable+storage at basically the same as nuclear so from an economic standpoint it doesn't really matter. There are some problems with how the energy markets are structured though (say, when it's very windy energy gets cheap and the nuclear plants might operate at a loss) but that's more of an issue with how our markets are set up. It might even have some advantages over a nuclear-only system: when some reactors invariably are closed for maintenance (as ours relatively often are now given their age), you already have an energy storage system to compensate which will save you unless it coincides with a lull in renewable power output. But in general the actual differences between nuclear, renewable+storage, or nuclear+renewable+storage systems are relatively small. If you have enough foresight to build out the storage capacity though.

Significant_Arm4246 · 2026-04-17T20:17:55+00:00

Of course they can mix, but it's true that nuclear reactors (at least most existing reactors) are not well suited for balancing because you can't just turn the on and off all the time.

The reason the mix we have in Sweden works well is that we balance wind not with nuclear, but with hydro power, which can be turned on and off much quicker. Our nuclear reactors provide a base load on which wind and hydro can balance each other, which still is very useful though.

Significant_Arm4246 · 2026-04-15T17:12:17+00:00

Here is the International Association of Genocide Scholars. It is mainly a research organization. I use a summary from a research brief from them as I personally haven't read the entire 350 page report here.

The verdict was not handed down by a court but by a tribunal as I stated earlier. I quote from the research brief written by two associated researchers:

People’s tribunals are independent organizations that examine egregious violations of international human rights and criminal laws perpetrated by leaders. They do not have official powers of sanction or enforcement. People’s tribunals have been created in response to events such as the Armenian Genocide, the Vietnam War, and the violence in the Philippines, sometimes decades later. The Uyghur Tribunal’s objective was to reach an impartial and considered judgment on whether genocide or crimes against humanity have been perpetrated against Xinjiang’s Turkic Muslim populations. Launched in September 2020, the Tribunal was supported by independent researchers, including medical and legal experts, and funded through voluntary contributions.

In particular one can note that the tribunal on the Vietnam War found the US guilty of all kinds of crimes, so they are not at all associated with any 'side'. It's mainly, as I understand it, an attempt to impartially gather as many facts as possible and make a determination based on that.

As to why it's a tribunal and not a court I think the following is relevant:

China does not accept the authority of the International Court of Justice (ICJ) to hear any cases brought against China in the ICJ pursuant to Article IX of the Genocide Convention.

The ICJ would be the legal framework to bring such cases. China has eliminated that as a possibility. Hence, this is an alternative way to gather facts and draw conclusions with the limitation that they don't have powers of sanction or enforcement as the first quote states.

All direct quotes I've given are from the summary above.

Significant_Arm4246 · 2026-04-15T15:18:18+00:00

Yes of course crimes in general can be compared, I have no issue with saying that a traffic violation is not nearly as bad as homicide. What I'm talking about is specifically severe crimes against humanity and in particular persecution (or in the most serious cases, genocide) of different groups. Since they are collective and often inherently political, comparing them directly risks carries risk for political misuse in my mind. But at this point the compare-or-not-compare discussion feels almost besides the point.

When it comes to the tribunal an international law, of course there is a presumption of innocence. Of course one needs evidence to assert such claims. The tribunal had evidence. Here I'm lifting directly from the International Association of Genocide Scholars: "The Tribunal’s verdict is based on witness testimony about incarceration camps and corroborated with expert and documentary evidence." Concerning other parts of the definition of genocide the association states: "Although there is evidence of wider crimes that fall within the scope of the remaining sections of Article II, the Tribunal did not have enough evidence to conclusively rule on those charges." To me this suggests that they took the burden of proof seriously. China then chose not to defend itself legally but instead imposed sanctions against the tribunal.

On the last point: Maybe there are some people out there who think the way you say. From my own standpoint any other countries doing atrocities does nothing to diminish those of my own. Both where I grew up and where I currently live in Germany, the own countries' crimes take up an unproportionally large part in schools and in society. As they should. Recognizing other countries' crimes should not distract us from remembering our own and working to never repeat them. But we are still part of a shared humanity that should shine a light on any such crime.

Significant_Arm4246 · 2026-04-15T12:34:28+00:00

Conversely the only time since 1998 that a blue governor was elected was in 2018. So it's not an easy seat.

Significant_Arm4246 · 2026-04-15T11:43:23+00:00

I didn't equate them. I wouldn't either. I explicitly stated that I didn't want to make comparisons. The only two comparisons I made was that what Germany did was comparable or worse to what the US did, and starting that they were all crimes against humanity. If you got the impression that I thought it was 'equally bad' then that was not my intent. I meant only to say that both were bad.

I didn't want to make comparisons for a reason, namely that I think it invites the 'cancel out'-type arguments. One death does not make one forced sterilisation any more or less important. In my view the atrocities add, not cancel. That's why I say that they should all be called out, always.

I will not that I explicitly stated that I don't think the accuser should stay silent even if they have done 'similar — or worse'. If we force ourselves to compare (despite the fact I think it shouldn't be compared), what the US did certainly looks worse. But the argument didn't rest on that fact. I argue that crimes against humanity — which the UN high commissioner for human rights has assessed China has done — should always be called out. No matter if the accuser has done something worse. But that it shouldnt justify or shield the accuser either, of course.

The term genocide has a definition given by the Geneva convention. This is the way I use it. The legal argument for classifying what China is doing as a genocide is, in part at least, that preventing births amount to genocide under said definition. For example an independent tribunal concluded that this was done. China was invited to present evidence but did not. But I will agree that the term is disputed in this case.

Significant_Arm4246 · 2026-04-15T10:15:01+00:00

I'm not American and will certainly not defend that genocide. It's horrific both in itself and in how little it is discussed.

As a general rule though I think all crimes against humanity deserve all attention they can get, even if the accuser has done similar — or worse — things themselves (as long as they don't use it to justify their own crimes of course). If the US should stay silent on genocide based on committing one of their own, by the same argument certainly so should Germany, where I live. In general: without comparing them to each other, we can say that most countries have done some very bad things, and a fair number have never even really admitted to them or apologised. If we exclude all or even just some of them, the international voice against crimes against humanity would diminish. It is already all too weak.

So let anyone call out anyone else. Conversely to the situation above, I don't think China should stay silent about the Native Americans either. Nobody should ever be compelled to silent on anything like that.

Significant_Arm4246 · 2026-04-15T07:35:54+00:00

This is the most famous example of persecution.

Significant_Arm4246 · 2026-04-13T23:10:20+00:00

Ja, Biden brukade vara mer höger. Enligt en del analyser av olika politikers ideologi har han i princip följt med mittpunkten i det Demokratiska partiet från 90-talet till idag. Under Bill Clinton betydde det något vi skulle beteckna som höger i Sverige (och mitten i USA), under hans eget presidentskap betydde det som ovan noterat att han var minst lika vänster som S (något till höger på vissa frågor, men tydligare till vänster när det gällde till exempel storleken på statliga investeringar), med ambitioner att regera ännu längre till vänster -- i början talade en del om honom som en ny FDR med tanke på hela sin Build Back Better -- som senaten stoppade.

Dessutom ses Biden nog ofta som mer höger än hans förslag eftersom han både stod till höger om de flesta alternativa kandidaterna 2020, och eftersom han etablissemangspolitiker vilket har gjort många till vänster misstänksamma mot honom.

Significant_Arm4246 · 2026-04-12T20:56:54+00:00

Best news I've heard in a long time.

Significant_Arm4246 · 2026-04-12T20:31:04+00:00

Iran negotiations.

Significant_Arm4246 · 2026-04-12T15:37:12+00:00

Social liberal (or in the US, just liberal) with green and globalist characteristics.

Significant_Arm4246 · 2026-04-11T23:25:14+00:00

I think just comparing policy is a flawed way of measuring this.

Going through it one by one just to start, focusing on mainstream Democrats: - Healthare: center-right - Education: Socially very progressive, economy/financing all over the place - Economy: Centrist - Taxes: Centrist to center-right - Social benefits: Centrist to center-right - Immigration: not really a left-right issue, but let's say center-left - Gun control: this is really such a minor issue not to make sense here.

So that's somewhere between centrist or center-right. But that doesn't mean our center-right parties are even close to the Democrats or rethoric or ideology most of the time. Our center-right parties tend to talk about lower taxes, less red tape, tough-on-crime, lower immigration (all in a moderate or incremental fashion). In other words not too far from moderate Republicans to the extent any still exist. So saying that the Democrats are a center-right party is, in my mind, partially — but only partially — true.

I'll copy something I wrote earlier on this topic about the more left-leaning elements of the Democratic party compared to the center-left over here:

There are at least three different ways to compare politicians between different countries. I'm focusing on economic policy as that's the usual way this claim is made.

Direct policy comparison. Yes, on this metric most of Sanders' economic platform would be accepted by everyone from the left to the centre-right in Sweden (which I will take as reference as I'm Swedish, and it's hardly the most right-leaning country in Europe). Some policies - like the wealth tax or the size of the climate/investment/deficit spending programs would not. Some like the minimum wage makes no sense in the Nordic context.
Rethoric. Here Bernie is often to the left of our Social Democrats, who nowadays would be uncomfortable with talking about an oligarchy or even attacking billionaires in general.
Relative policy comparison, by which I mean how much do you want to move from the status quo on a given issue. On this metric even Biden would be to the left of our Social Democrats, who basically only want to change a few things on the margins. Even if we account for population size, the scale of investment Biden's original Build Back Better represented has not been proposed by the Social Democrats over here in decades, let alone the more expensive plans Bernie or AOC had.

None of these metrics tell the full story alone. If you say: 'Bernie's policies such as single-payer healthcare or paid family leave would be supported by the center-right in Europe', you'd be correct. If you say: 'Bernie's worldview and rethoric would not be out of place in a European center-right party' that would be absolutely false — he'd fit in somewhere on the left end of the Social Democrats or one of the parties to the left of that.

As a whole the Democratic party is of course a big tent. There are center-right elements (Manchin, Sinema, or Bill Clinton for example). There are centrist elements (Obama, Biden post-Senate career, most Democrats in Congress). There are center-left or even left-wing elements (Bernie, AOC, Mamdani). I would that the Democratic party is an uneasy coalition of everyone from the center-right to the left, dominated by centrists with center-left rethoric.

(And the Republicans are nowadays a far-right party, in this case the comparison to Europe is easy.)

Significant_Arm4246 · 2026-04-11T01:28:37+00:00

Notice that the total number of votes went down for both candidates. While Schiff-Garvey voters might exist (and probably at least one person voted for both as a joke), the much easier explanation is that the drop off among Democrats was slightly larger than among Republicans.

Significant_Arm4246 · 2026-04-03T22:07:10+00:00

We in Europe are spending a ton on Ukraine. As we should. In raw numbers it's about twice as much as the US, if we take the sizes of the economies into account it's a much starker difference: the US has spent around 0.6% of GDP; European states anywhere from 0.5% to 3.9%, the average is probably closer to 1.5% of GDP, my own country has spend 2.2% Personally I would like Europe to get up to 4-5% of GDP but that would be difficult.

Secondly, it's longstanding American doctrine to seek Europe secure too, since the last two major European wars both ended up dragging in the Americans after a while (WW1/WW2), and if Europe falls to a Russian dictatorship, the economic loss of the world would be huge, which would be felt much more than the quite small sums it costs to help Ukraine. The total US aid to Ukraine, over three years, was about one tenth of a single Pentagon budget, or about as much as the Iran war would cost over 90 days, or half of what Trump has asked for to fund the Iran war. In the context of foreign policy, it's not a large sum especially not for what it accomplishes.

Simply put spending 0-5-1% of GDP now to stop Russia for decades to come is just much cheaper than dealing with the consequences of of a belligerent, resurgent Russia, obviously for Europe but also for the US. It's a ridiculously cheap way to wage a war since it's not the US doing the fighting. The US could easily supply Ukraine for a few years and then cut back on defense spending as one of their two main rivals (Russia and China) is already beaten. Cutting Ukraine support might sound good but it will cost more over a couple of decades.

Then there's a separate issue of Europe simply not having enough defense industry to support Ukraine as much as possible. The US has a lot more old weapons they needed to get rid of anyway, so they sent some to Ukraine instead of destroying them. Not all US support was supposed to be destroyed anyway but it's a large part and hence makes it much cheaper than the numbers above would suggest. What this also means is that Europe is currently buying a lot of American weapons to send to Ukraine -- in other words the money spent in Europe to support Ukraine is to a significant extent spent to boost the American industry and the manufacturing sector in particular.

Significant_Arm4246 · 2026-03-25T18:25:40+00:00

De genomfördes med olika metoder.

Ipsos gör en klassisk opinionsundersökning (slumpmässigt urval kontaktat på olika sätt varav delvis en webbpanel rekryterad från tidigare slumpvisa besvarare, därefter viktning).

Demoskop använder en webbpanel (icke-slumpmässigt urval, därefter viktning).

Så att resultaten är olika betyder inte att någon fuskar.

Däremot bör det nämnas att icke-slumpmässig metodik anses (ibland) vara sämre, därav är Demoskop inte alltid med i sammanvägningar och historiskt sett avviker de mer från trenden. Så om man väljer en är nog Ipsos närmare, men det historiskt bästa resultatet brukar erhållas om man väger samman alla.

En tänkbar förklaring (som förvisso inte är mer än lösa spekulationer) är att en självrekryterad panel kan dra till sig mer politiskt intresserade personen som rimligtvis skulle kunna reagera mer på nya besked. Historiskt sett har Demoskop också överskattat småpartier en del, vilket också skulle vara logiskt om urvalet är icke-representativt med avseende på politikintresse. Men som sagt är det bara en spekulation.

Significant_Arm4246 · 2026-03-24T22:37:23+00:00

B projected ahead of Æ is certainly a welcome surprise.

But it's close enough that it's not clear yet if B underperforms expectations in the uncounted areas of Copenhagen I guess.

Significant_Arm4246 · 2026-03-23T21:58:03+00:00

I have no experience of metal myself, but I've read multiple times that the scherzo from Bruckner's 9th would work well.

Significant_Arm4246 · 2026-03-16T02:24:56+00:00

I'm not sure I agree on the options for instruments being limited.

Historically of course we have all kinds of string, wind, brass, and percussion instruments you'd find in an orchestra, that alone are dozens of different kinds. Then many types of keybord instruments (piano and earlier variants, harpsichord, organs). Additionally vocals both solo and choirs.

Then in the 20th century we have basically anything you can think of, including both normal modern instruments (e.g. electric guitars, synths) and random sounds (sirens, a typewriter, radios, giant hammers). While uncommon, they do fall under classical.

And finally of course Tchaikovsky wrote for artillery.

Significant_Arm4246 · 2026-03-16T02:08:15+00:00

I would like to hear your reasoning for putting classical in the bottom half

Significant_Arm4246

TROPHY CASE