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?

His policy is radical and I disagree with it,

What's wrong with being "radical"?

I agree that Beck has a tendency to use let's say "evocative rhetoric" that would certainly not pass muster on LW.

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.

What exactly is so "lunatic" about this quote? Yes, the reasoning isn't up to LW standards, but that's true of nearly all reasoning outside LW.

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.

He is by no means the only public personality to fantasize about killing a prominent member of the opposing political faction.

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

I disagree with him, but you may want to read this before deciding that this is obviously "lunatic".

I can't be bothered writing up a summary of his conspiracy theories, but it's worth googling his Caliphate theory.

Near as I can tell, this theory stripped of the flowery language boils down to the prediction that the Muslim spring uprising will result in theocratic Islamic governments that will attempt to impose Islamic theocracy on the rest of the world to the best of their abilities. Well, in light of recent events this prediction is looking increasingly probable.

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.

Let me guess, this is the first time you've been in a discussion with someone whose political views are vastly different from your own.

-16

Any existential risk angles to the US presidential election?

-16

-16

-16

Any existential risk angles to the US presidential election?

-16

-16