Any existential risk angles to the US presidential election?

Stuart_Armstrong

Don't let your minds be killed, but I was wondering if there were any existential risk angles to the coming American election (if there isn't, then I'll simply retreat to raw, enjoyable and empty tribalism).

I can see three (quite tenuous) angles:

Obama seems more likely to attempt to get some sort of global warming agreement. While not directly related to Xrisks per se, this would lead to better global coordination and agreement, which improves the outlook for a lot of other Xrisks. However, pretty unlikely to succeed.
I have a mental image that Republicans would be more likely to invest in space exploration. This is a lot due to Newt Gingrich, I have to admit, and to the closeness between civilian and military space projects, the last of which are more likely to get boosts in Republican governments.
If we are holding out for increased population rationality as being a helping factor for some Xrisks, then the fact the the Republicans have gone so strongly anti-science is certainly a bad sign. But on the other hand, its not clear whether them winning or losing the election is more likely to improve the general environment for science among their supporters.

But these all seem weak factors. So, less wronger, let me know: are the things I should care about in the election, or can I just lie back and enjoy it as a piece of interesting theatre?

I can see three (quite tenuous) angles:

Obama seems more likely to attempt to get some sort of global warming agreement. While not directly related to Xrisks per se, this would lead to better global coordination and agreement, which improves the outlook for a lot of other Xrisks. However, pretty unlikely to succeed.
I have a mental image that Republicans would be more likely to invest in space exploration. This is a lot due to Newt Gingrich, I have to admit, and to the closeness between civilian and military space projects, the last of which are more likely to get boosts in Republican governments.
If we are holding out for increased population rationality as being a helping factor for some Xrisks, then the fact the the Republicans have gone so strongly anti-science is certainly a bad sign. But on the other hand, its not clear whether them winning or losing the election is more likely to improve the general environment for science among their supporters.

But these all seem weak factors. So, less wronger, let me know: are the things I should care about in the election, or can I just lie back and enjoy it as a piece of interesting theatre?

Glenn Beck himself is definitely smarter than most Americans, but he's never let that get in the way of being a frothing lunatic.

What you mean is that you disagree with him on a lot of issues, for each one consider the possibility that it is you who is being a lunatic.

Let me be very clear, I'm not calling Beck a lunatic solely on grounds of his policy. His policy is radical and I disagree with it, but that isn't my main piece of evidence, it's the cherry on the top. This is my main evidence:

This president I think has exposed himself over and over again as a guy who has a deep-seated hatred for white people or the white culture....I'm not saying he doesn't like white people, I'm saying he has a problem. This guy is, I believe, a racist.

–on President Obama, July 28, 2009

I'm thinking about killing Michael Moore, and I'm wondering if I could kill him myself, or if I would need to hire somebody to do it. ... No, I think I could. I think he could be looking me in the eye, you know, and I could just be choking the life out. Is this wrong? I stopped wearing my What Would Jesus -- band -- Do, and I've lost all sense of right and wrong now. I used to be able to say, 'Yeah, I'd kill Michael Moore,' and then I'd see the little band: What Would Jesus Do? And then I'd realize, 'Oh, you wouldn't kill Michael Moore. Or at least you wouldn't choke him to death.' And you know, well, I'm not sure.

–responding to the question "What would people do for $50 million?", "The Glenn Beck Program," May 17, 2005

Al Gore's not going to be rounding up Jews and exterminating them. It is the same tactic, however. The goal is different. The goal is globalization...And you must silence all dissenting voices. That's what Hitler did. That's what Al Gore, the U.N., and everybody on the global warming bandwagon [are doing].

–"The Glenn Beck Program," May 1, 2007

So here you have Barack Obama going in and spending the money on embryonic stem cell research. ... Eugenics. In case you don't know what Eugenics led us to: the Final Solution. A master race! A perfect person. ... The stuff that we are facing is absolutely frightening.

–"The Glenn Beck Program," March 9, 2009

I don’t think we came from monkeys. I think that’s ridiculous. I haven’t seen a half-monkey, half-person yet.

– May 18, 2010

They [Democrats in Congress] believe in communism. They believe and have called for a revolution. You’re going to have to shoot them in the head. But warning, they may shoot you.

– June 9, 2010

The most used phrase in my administration if I were to be President would be 'What the hell you mean we're out of missiles?''

—Jan. 2009

I can't be bothered writing up a summary of his conspiracy theories, but it's worth googling his Caliphate theory. That is, google it if you don't believe his other theory about how Google is part of a separate but equally evil conspiracy.

Wait, did I just get punk'd? Was this a serious reply that I responded to? I'm genuinely wondering, I'm not trying to make fun of you. Poe's Law and all that.

Quotes on a tv show that achieves ratings based on sensationalism aren't great evidence for the sanity of the main character.

-16

Any existential risk angles to the US presidential election?

-16

-16

-16

Any existential risk angles to the US presidential election?

-16

-16