ISOT MAGA to the 70s.

[Zyobot]

They are significantly better than not having them. That's the point: the lack of free trade and the presence of tariffs is stopping people from trading. That's anti-libertarianism. Free trade agreements, while not perfect, improve freedom overall.

It's not statist to allow people to trade. Yes, there is an issue about standardization, but overall it's a benefit. The TPP probably fell below that benefit though.

It's highly statist to over-regulate trade, though, which is what I've been trying to get across here. I'm not advocating protectionist measures, I just think they're more likely than not to be implemented, whether we like it or not.

This, however? This is likely statism. If you use the government to do this, then this is classic anti-capitalism.

Again, I don't advocate this. You seem to be conflating what I believe will happen with what I'd like to happen, even though they're not the same thing. Nor is it a very helpful approach to discussion, with all due respect.

 

[Buba]

Speaking of Nixon - wouldn't he be ereased? Where was he on that day?
Good point about drugs - needless penalisation of The Weed might be stillborn.
Looking at 1970 - the New England states seem to be mostly DT. Plus - Delaware? New Jersey? California? Between half a dozen and ten states should have DT majorities.
As to politics - before the DT and UT equivalents eventually merge - there will be four parties.
BTW skillful enough to calculate/guesstimate what the population of post-event 1970 USA looks like? Or did I miss a post with that?

 

[Abhorsen]

It's highly statist to over-regulate trade, though, which is what I've been trying to get across here. I'm not advocating protectionist measures, I just think they're more likely than not to be implemented, whether we like it or not.

Yes, but the alternatives to these agreements is more regulation, not less. And the hostility to free trade/globalism is something that won't bring about libertarianism.

Again, I don't advocate this. You seem to be conflating what I believe will happen with what I'd like to happen, even though they're not the same thing. Nor is it a very helpful approach to discussion, with all due respect.

I wasn't saying you were advocating this. I was trying to say that this would not be inline with a supposed libertarian uprising (which I doubt would happen).

 

[Zyobot]

Speaking of Nixon - wouldn't he be ereased? Where was he on that day?

Dunno, though the default assumption seems to be in DC.

Good point about drugs - needless penalisation of The Weed might be stillborn.

Hopefully, yes. Then again, I forgot to mention the opioid epidemic, so I wouldn't rule out incoming legislation on that.

Looking at 1970 - the New England states seem to be mostly DT. Plus - Delaware? New Jersey? California? Between half a dozen and ten states should have DT majorities.

Ooh, good point.

I'm not sure how populated the 1970 regions are, though, nor their usual voting patterns. I remember @Bear Ribs posted a map of the 2016 election by county on the first page, but that only tells us how their uptimer counterparts voted, not their downtimer ones.

As to politics - before the DT and UT equivalents eventually merge - there will be four parties.

So, two Republican Parties and two Democratic Parties, then?

BTW skillful enough to calculate/guesstimate what the population of post-event 1970 USA looks like? Or did I miss a post with that?

No, I don't think anyone has, yet. I certainly don't have the time (or guts) to, but if anyone else does, I'd be happy to read their breakdown.

Yes, but the alternatives to these agreements is more regulation, not less. And the hostility to free trade/globalism is something that won't bring about libertarianism.

I wasn't saying you were advocating this. I was trying to say that this would not be inline with a supposed libertarian uprising (which I doubt would happen).

Okay, points noted. As you say, I think libertarian-minded segments will find themselves disappointed and largely swept aside, since they'll be drowned out by two (or, perhaps, four)-party politics, albeit with MAGA Republicans enjoying a lopsided advantage.

 

[Agent23]

It is not just that, the Europeans and Japan for example were abusing the Gold Window heavily, putting protectionist tariffs in, and dumping their currency to sell to the USA.
TBH I think that capitalism has to have some form of Prime Directive at times.

Something along the lines of "you need to respect human rights and implement some degree of democracy, keep your budget balanced and not print money like crazy and have REAL ECONOMIC FREEDOM to get investment from us and sell us non-essentials..."

Check out my next post about the Economic Prime Directive.
The problem with Libertarianism is that IMO works in a Lockian environment not a Hobbesian.

 

[Bear Ribs]

I'm not sure how populated the 1970 regions are, though, nor their usual voting patterns. I remember @Bear Ribs posted a map of the 2016 election by county on the first page, but that only tells us how their uptimer counterparts voted, not their downtimer ones.

The 1972 election was the biggest landslide in US history. Nixon took every electoral vote except Mass. and DC, with the Libertarian party grabbing a single slot from Kentucky.

I'm not quite sure why this map has Republicans in blue and Democrats in red, but whatevs, it gets the point across anyway.

 

[Zyobot]

The 1972 election was the biggest landslide in US history. Nixon took every electoral vote except Mass. and DC, with the Libertarian party grabbing a single slot from Kentucky.

Definitely a blowout for sure, though 1936, 1964, and 1984 would like to have a word for you as far as what qualifies as the biggest landslide.

I'm not quite sure why this map has Republicans in blue and Democrats in red, but whatevs, it gets the point across anyway.

I think it's because party colors flipped in the Nineties, but I don't remember why. Once saw it suggested that Democrats complained about red implying a connection with communists, though I can't speak to how true that is.

 

[Buba]

I'm not quite sure why this map has Republicans in blue and Democrats in red

Because EVERYWHERE and since like FOREVER red was used to denote the left and blue the right.
As part of brainwashing of the masses the democrat loving media in the USA flipped the colours.

So, two Republican Parties and two Democratic Parties, then?

Yes, that's what I'd expect for the first few years.

the default assumption seems to be in DC.

In which case he survives, as in 2020 DC voted Dem?

 

[Zyobot]

Yes, that's what I'd expect for the first few years.

Looks like they'll need different names, then, mainly to avoid confusion over which Republicans or Democrats you're talking about. Who knows, maybe you could get a four-way parliamentary system out of this, which would make politics coalition-based and even more chaotic than IOTL.

In which case he survives, as in 2020 DC voted Dem?

Pretty much, though for Nixon, vanishing if he were elsewhere instead would've been the easy way out.

 

[Bassoe]

I don't know as much about Rand, but I'm not so sure Goldwater would be as placated as you imagine? For one, he was pro-choice, and his openness to deploying tactical nukes in Vietnam wouldn't win him many friends amongst uptimers who've grown wary of foreign adventurism. (Of course, it's also true the Reds are back, so perhaps MAGA uptimers would prove more receptive to crushing communism abroad than they might've been to pointless forever wars in the Middle East. )

The thing with the Vietnam war is that the Elites, or part of them, in any case, started turning away from it long before the masses did.
Check out George F. Kennan's biography, for example.
At that point the war party/MIC was less powerful, and Vietnam actually made it grow.
LBJ for instance was very chummy with what later became Haliburton's owners.

Bullshit, it doesn't matter how close the American ruling classes thought they were to winning in Vietnam, it wasn't worth the price. By getting involved in Vietnam at all, we lost. The average American citizen wouldn't be affected in the slightest regardless of if Vietnam was ran by a leftist Soviet puppet regime or a rightist American one, only if they were legally enslaved by the draft and sent to die in a godforsaken foreign jungle for the whims of neoconservative military planners and profit of military-industry complex megacorporations.

In this scenario, either the American ruling classes give up outright on invading Vietnam at all or they get a significant number of uptimers responding to draft letters by seeking political asylum abroad and taking all they know of future events and technologies with them because fuck those warmongering bastards and their fantasies of an empire of the oligarchs built on the blood of the American peasantry yet with no benefits trickling down to the class who actually sacrifices for it.

Or I guess make an exception where uptimers are all legally considered too young to be drafted since they technically haven't been born yet, that might also work.

 

[ATP]

Bullshit, it doesn't matter how close the American ruling classes thought they were to winning in Vietnam, it wasn't worth the price. By getting involved in Vietnam at all, we lost. The average American citizen wouldn't be affected in the slightest regardless of if Vietnam was ran by a leftist Soviet puppet regime or a rightist American one, only if they were legally enslaved by the draft and sent to die in a godforsaken foreign jungle for the whims of neoconservative military planners and profit of military-industry complex megacorporations.

In this scenario, either the American ruling classes give up outright on invading Vietnam at all or they get a significant number of uptimers responding to draft letters by seeking political asylum abroad and taking all they know of future events and technologies with them because fuck those warmongering bastards and their fantasies of an empire of the oligarchs built on the blood of the American peasantry yet with no benefits trickling down to the class who actually sacrifices for it.

Or I guess make an exception where uptimers are all legally considered too young to be drafted since they technically haven't been born yet, that might also work.

You forget,that with 2020 tech and knowledge about commies,USA could easily win this time.

 

[Bassoe]

USA could easily win this time.

Didn't we just finish expensively and humiliatingly losing to a bunch of guerrillas with ex-soviet equipment, again? And in any case, it doesn't matter if America has the military prowess for imperialism, but if it benefits us to do so. Which it doesn't. The American Empire has been objectively a complete disaster for the American people aside from the ruling oligarchy.

• Defended free trade, therefore turning all employment into zero sum competition with literal slave labor "wages" abroad.
• Created multiple weak points where one country being taken over or collapsing or just refusing to sell something they monopolize can cripple everyone.
• By invading their homes, antagonized entire populations into supporting terrorism against us.
• Justified the creation of the surveillance state targeted at us, supposedly to defend us from said terrorists.
• Runs on the sacrificed lives of lower and middle class Americans as soldiers. The two classes who don't receive any of the profits of the empire, those are all held by the upper class.
• Our invasions of random countries are used as blood libel against us and justification for our colonization by the "feel guilty over your ancestors doing colonialism" cult.

 

[ATP]

Didn't we just finish expensively and humiliatingly losing to a bunch of guerrillas with ex-soviet equipment, again? And in any case, it doesn't matter if America has the military prowess for imperialism, but if it benefits us to do so. Which it doesn't. The American Empire has been objectively a complete disaster for the American people aside from the ruling oligarchy.

• Defended free trade, therefore turning all employment into zero sum competition with literal slave labor "wages" abroad.
• Created multiple weak points where one country being taken over or collapsing or just refusing to sell something they monopolize can cripple everyone.
• By invading their homes, antagonized entire populations into supporting terrorism against us.
• Justified the creation of the surveillance state targeted at us, supposedly to defend us from said terrorists.
• Runs on the sacrificed lives of lower and middle class Americans as soldiers. The two classes who don't receive any of the profits of the empire, those are all held by the upper class.
• Our invasions of random countries are used as blood libel against us and justification for our colonization by the "feel guilty over your ancestors doing colonialism" cult.

And when commies invaded South Vietnam in 1975,they genocided at least 500.000 of people there.Not counting boat people who died on sea.
USA would not win easy fight there for slave wages,but to prevent genocide.Not only becouse of morality,but political reasons - not many country would ally with USA which let genocide its allies.

And it would be easy win - becouse commies are very brave in sending other to die,but not risking their precious hides.When USA start killing their leaders/they knew where they were or could be/ those who remain would toss towel.

P.S Afganistan was not lost on battlefield - Biden simply run without fight.