Jump to content

The US Politics/Elections Thread


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, W. Axl Kev said:

Speaking to friends, family (my girlfriend's immediate and extended family), colleagues etc. you get the impression that really level headed people are going to vote for Trump but just wont advertise it. I find it really hard to accept that, when roughly - win or lose - half the country will vote for him, all Trump supporters are "racist", "misogynist", "anti-immigration", "proud boys" etc. Being a Trump voter has almost now meant you're a certain type of person which just can't be true. Just like being a Biden supporter doesn't mean you're a socialist/communist.

So half of the country isn't going to vote for Donald Trump.  They didn't in 2016 and they won't in 2020.  Granted, it will be way too many, but the 46 percent he got in 2016 isn't half.  He'll likely achieve a lower percentage this time around.  The odds that Trump wins the popular vote is 3 in 100.  He might win the electoral college and thus the White House, but even there the odds are 1 in 10.  

To your point that all Trump voters are racists, misogynists, anti-immigration, etc...  No, they aren't all that.  But their tolerance for all of that is way too high.  At some point you become complicit in all the shit that comes with Trump and his base.   At this point if you're voting for Trump you also have to own all of that.  You could argue that the same is true for Biden and Democrats, but it's not true.  Biden has repeatedly denounced violence and the fringe elements of the left.  He doesn't indulge and flame the worst traits of the left.  Moreover, there is nothing "socialist/communist" about the Democratic platform or Biden's campaign pitch.  Nothing.  It's a false equivalency if there ever was one.

1 hour ago, W. Axl Kev said:

rom what I've seen the past 4 years, a Trump vote is almost akin to a protest vote in some instances meaning it's not about the man himself but more about voting for a genuine alternative to the cliched DC white collar, privileged runaround politicians who've already been in the White House and speak vaguely of "hope" and the "soul of the nation". I think when Trump speaks about American jobs, America first, American infrastructure it probably appeals more to your average income family from an average American town that one of these elite Washington politicians.

If this was 2016 then I would agree with you.  But we're four years into Trump's presidency.  Though he might try, he's not going to be judged on platitudes.  He has a track record.  And you have to have your head firmly up your ass if you think Trump governed as anything other than your typical Republican politician, with the one exception of the trade war that did absolutely nothing to a) correct the trade imbalance with China, b) bring back jobs to the country.  I do think Trump does a great job of harnessing the anger, frustrations, and entitlement of a segment of America that feels their position in the social hierarchy is being challenged or lost.  It's white (and largely male) rage that he speaks to and for.  

1 hour ago, W. Axl Kev said:

You can carve it up a hundred different ways but I'm sure we all agree that, regardless of outcome, the bar is incredibly low and America deserves better.

I disagree.  In a democracy where everyone has a voice and a vote, you get the government you deserve.  America doesn't deserve better.  This is the outcome it has chosen, and hence its one that's deserved.  If too many citizens of a country get complacent, ignorant, or cynical, then it's difficult to feel bad for that country.  At some point some ownership for the current state of affairs is required.

  • GNFNR 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 30.7k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • downzy

    4913

  • Dazey

    1994

  • soon

    1761

  • Georgy Zhukov

    1595

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Donald Trump just grabbed America by the pussy

Posted Images

13 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Out of interest, is Biden proposing a (European style) lockdown?

No.  And he's acknowledged he doesn't have the authority to do so.

He's in favour of setting national standards and guidelines - based on transmission, hospitalization, ICU rates - that would dictate what sections of the economy should be shut down.  They would still be voluntary since Governors have the authority to make these kinds of decisions, not Presidents.  

16 minutes ago, 31illusions said:

He's already won. Please Don't kid yourself.

Saved for posterity.

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Gackt said:

Trump's base has only gotten bigger.

Not true...

The demographics of who supports Trump has shrunk in 2020 over 2016.   Whites with a college education are a growing demographic versus whites without higher education.  Whites with diplomas are more likely to vote for Biden. 

Just looking at Florida, the non-college-educated voter bloc has shrunk by 359k voters since 2016 while the Biden coalition has grown by almost 1.6 million over the last four years.  That doesn't mean Biden wins Florida.  A bigger coalition is great, but it doesn't mean that everyone will vote.  But don't kid yourself if you think Trump's coalition is getting bigger.  It's not.  

54 minutes ago, Basic_GnR_Fan said:

Yes, and so is doing a protest in the middle of a highway or busy street.

Agreed.  It's never made sense to me to disrupt traffic.  I've been in situations where causes I support block my drive home and I want to renounce the whole fucking movement.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, downzy said:

No.  And he's acknowledged he doesn't have the authority to do so.

He's in favour of setting national standards and guidelines - based on transmission, hospitalization, ICU rates - that would dictate what sections of the economy should be shut down.  They would still be voluntary since Governors have the authority to make these kinds of decisions, not Presidents.  

Saved for posterity.

Sounds like a bunch of'' half-way house'' bollocks. The argument that Trump possesses a fatal laissez-faire attitude to Corona can surely be only brought to its logical conclusion by his rival, which is by offering his support to a full-blown national lockdown - NB., Germany also possesses a federal government and has entered lockdown. Also note that most anti-Trump/pro-Biden supporters are very lockdown/mask happy and keen to denounce the ''covidiot''.

Yet, what would you get? Utter waffle haha. Biden will offer nothing more than Trump.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, W. Axl Kev said:

Downzy, statistically half of America will vote for Trump. Let go of the notion its because they like the person. That can't be true, surely? I think it's almost more of a protest vote against the "standard democrat alternative".*

Again, I disagree.  A have a lot of American family members that run the gambit.  80 percent are ardent Trump supporters.  All of them love him.  They have drank the kool-aid and can't say a bad word about the guy.  Trump speaks to tribe.  It's akin to being part of a sports fanbase.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, downzy said:

Not true...

The demographics of who supports Trump has shrunk in 2020 over 2016.   Whites with a college education are a growing demographic versus whites without higher education.  Whites with diplomas are more likely to vote for Biden. 

Just looking at Florida, the non-college-educated voter bloc has shrunk by 359k voters since 2016 while the Biden coalition has grown by almost 1.6 million over the last four years.  That doesn't mean Biden wins Florida.  A bigger coalition is great, but it doesn't mean that everyone will vote.  But don't kid yourself if you think Trump's coalition is getting bigger.  It's not.  

You're shortsighted, only seeing two potential voter demographics for what fits your current argument.  Playing with numbers all day is exactly why pollsters keep tripping over themselves trying to analyze the election, rather than viewing the broad picture and seeing how Trump is likely going to pick up much bigger numbers with women and minority voters this time around, on top of voters that needed to see what he's capable of doing in office when he had no prior political experience to go off of previously.  You could say the Biden vote is a protest vote this time around against Trump, but who knows how many of those protest votes will end up going to Kanye?  :P

Again, Biden doesn't have the level of momentum that Hillary had behind him.  Just the financial backing.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Sounds like a bunch of'' half-way house'' bollocks. The argument that Trump possesses a fatal laissez-faire attitude to Corona can surely be only brought to its logical conclusion by his rival, which is by offering his support to a full-blown national lockdown - NB., Germany also possesses a federal government and has entered lockdown. Also note that most anti-Trump/pro-Biden supporters are very lockdown/mask happy and keen to denounce the ''covidiot''.

Yet, what would you get? Utter waffle haha. Biden will offer nothing more than Trump.

If you look at the states where the Governors have taken the virus seriously, provided clear communication, and followed the advice of medical experts, almost without exception those governors have above water approval ratings and generally have done a better job of steering their states away from the worst of the pandemic (with exception).

Acceptance of scientific reality and offering clear and consistent communication isn't nothing.  It can be the difference between life and death.  You might denigrate and minimize this approach as waffling, but for most people it's significant considering the absolute disaster that has been Trump's response to the pandemic.   

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Gackt said:

rather than viewing the broad picture and seeing how Trump is likely going to pick up much bigger numbers with women and minority voters this time around

He might do better with latinos and African Americans, the two largest minority demos, but not to the levels you're assuming. 

And if you think Trump is going to gain with female voters, lol, okay.  Let's come back in a couple of weeks once we get a better picture to see who is right.  But I think it's crazy to think that Trump is going to perform better with women voters in 2020 than he did in 2016.  

3 minutes ago, Gackt said:

You could say the Biden vote is a protest vote this time around against Trump, but who knows how many of those protest votes will end up going to Kanye?

None.

3 minutes ago, Gackt said:

Again, Biden doesn't have the level of momentum that Hillary had behind him.  Just the financial backing

Hillary had momentum in 2016?  LOL  You must have watched a different election than I did.

Biden doesn't necessary need a ton of enthusiasm for him.  Re-election campaigns are always a referendum about the incumbent.  

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Still baffled Biden is Dem’s champion to oppose Trump. He’s ok butt so sad out of 300million 🇺🇸 they couldn’t nominate a younger + charismatic + more to center candidat (VP)... with current context (pandemic + economy + environment...name it) this should have been a walk in the park -find myself at times rooting for both Rep & Dem values... this looks like a showdown of extremes & fast becoming too radical... “...It is what it is”  “...here’s the deal... ” -> come Tuesday whoever loses won’t be happy... except 🇨🇳 who love all this turmoil🤗

Edited by MikeD
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, downzy said:

If you look at the states where the Governors have taken the virus seriously, provided clear communication, and followed the advice of medical experts, almost without exception those governors have above water approval ratings and generally have done a better job of steering their states away from the worst of the pandemic (with exception).

Acceptance of scientific reality and offering clear and consistent communication isn't nothing.  It can be the difference between life and death.  You might denigrate and minimize this approach as waffling, but for most people it's significant considering the absolute disaster that has been Trump's response to the pandemic.   

The logical outcome would be a lockdown, similar to that which Europe is under, which Biden is as unwilling to deliver as Trump. You were keen to mention often American's disproportionate corona stats. Well? If Biden wins, what would he be stalling for?

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

The logical outcome would be a lockdown, similar to that which Europe is under, which Biden is as unwilling to deliver as Trump

I don't think Biden is unwilling, just that he can't.  The President doesn't have the authority to command a national lockdown.  But he can use the bully pulpit of the White House to pressure state and local governments to shut down if and when they're needed.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's been interesting to watch RCP averages and how much they're being skewed by Republican-run pollsters.  It reminds of 2012 when Obama's lead in the national averages was dragged down by Gallup (who subsequently abandoned their polling model shortly after the 2012 election).  

The RCP average does not weigh polls.  All polls, regardless of history of accuracy or partisan lean, get included in the average equally.  This doesn't make much sense since one would think that pollsters with a better track record, who are willing to reveal their cross tabs and methodology, and aren't run by clearly identified partisans, would get more consideration than those that do. 

You can see this in the Pennsylvania polling average.  Right now the RCP average stands at +2.5 for Biden.  But that average only includes the last eight polls, four of which are run by Republican affiliated polling firms (Susquehanna, InsiderAdvantage, Trafalgar, and Rasmussen Reports) - all but three showing Trump with a 1-2 point lead (Rasmussen gives Biden a 3 point lead).  All other polls, none of them partisan polling shops, show Biden with a 4 to 7 point lead.  Hence the RCP average is weighed down by pollsters who have expressed a partisan preference.  

Perhaps the partisan polls are correct.  They were (mostly) right in 2016.  But they were also (mostly) wrong in 2018; in some cases spectacularly wrong.  Guess we'll find out in the next couple of days who needs to close shop.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, downzy said:

So half of the country isn't going to vote for Donald Trump.  They didn't in 2016 and they won't in 2020.  Granted, it will be way too many, but the 46 percent he got in 2016 isn't half.  He'll likely achieve a lower percentage this time around.  The odds that Trump wins the popular vote is 3 in 100.  He might win the electoral college and thus the White House, but even there the odds are 1 in 10.  

I said "roughly half". It's an electoral college system so it's not about winning the majority is it? It's about winning where it counts. You may be right that he wins less this time. We'll see.

Quote

To your point that all Trump voters are racists, misogynists, anti-immigration, etc...  No, they aren't all that.  But their tolerance for all of that is way too high.  At some point you become complicit in all the shit that comes with Trump and his base.   At this point if you're voting for Trump you also have to own all of that.  You could argue that the same is true for Biden and Democrats, but it's not true.  Biden has repeatedly denounced violence and the fringe elements of the left.  He doesn't indulge and flame the worst traits of the left.  Moreover, there is nothing "socialist/communist" about the Democratic platform or Biden's campaign pitch.  Nothing.  It's a false equivalency if there ever was one.

I actually don't agree that you become complicit based on a vote administered. I can't remember a prior election or referendum anywhere in the world whereby if you decide against voting for the Republicans you're, therefore, automatically providing a vessel for racial, sexual, political violence/abuse etc. etc (I'm clearly not quoting every bad thing Trump supporters are accused of - can't remember them all). Americans have the right to vote for the republican party without being considered all of the things people accuse Trump of being. Does a farmer in Arkansas who agrees with the promotion of farming and industrial manufacturing in America also become an ICE supporter because he votes for the person who promotes the issues most relevant to he/she? I don't think that's a fair assertion.

Quote
Quote

If this was 2016 then I would agree with you.  But we're four years into Trump's presidency.  Though he might try, he's not going to be judged on platitudes.  He has a track record.  And you have to have your head firmly up your ass if you think Trump governed as anything other than your typical Republican politician, with the one exception of the trade war that did absolutely nothing to a) correct the trade imbalance with China, b) bring back jobs to the country.  I do think Trump does a great job of harnessing the anger, frustrations, and entitlement of a segment of America that feels their position in the social hierarchy is being challenged or lost.  It's white (and largely male) rage that he speaks to and for.

I agree he likely wont be solely judged by the American people on "platitudes" (to borrow your term). But you could be forgiven, based on reporting, for thinking that's the only thing people care about. I agree with you that Trump has governed as a typical Republican in office but, indeed, is that not what the country voted for? To my prior point, I believe it's a protest vote on the basis Hilary Clinton was clearly so abhorrent to many that she wasn't a viable option so they voted for the Republican alternative rather than solely for Donald Trump. 

Quote

I disagree.  In a democracy where everyone has a voice and a vote, you get the government you deserve.  America doesn't deserve better.  This is the outcome it has chosen, and hence its one that's deserved.  If too many citizens of a country get complacent, ignorant, or cynical, then it's difficult to feel bad for that country.  At some point some ownership for the current state of affairs is required.

I agree that complacency and general disengagement with the last election contributed to the current administration. That said, I stand by my point that America is a country, filled with wonderful people, which deserves fine leadership. I don't blame the individuals disenfranchised by prior or current political options for the country being in a divisive condition. Many great, intelligent people I'm friends with are choosing not to vote because they're deterred by two 70-something white guys fighting to be the best of a bad bunch. I get that but I disagree its what they deserve. I think its a reflection of what they've been made to endure.

 

Edited by W. Axl Kev
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, W. Axl Kev said:

Americans have the right to vote for the republican party without being considered all of the things people accuse Trump of being

We'll have to disagree on this point.  For me Trump has crossed the line long ago, most specifically with the policy of separating kids from their parents at the border, where continued support for Trump is continued support for his worst attributes and policies.  You can't watch and look past Trump shame and belittle Biden for his son's addiction battles because you like his tax cut.  At some point character, principles, and values supersedes policy preferences.  

1 hour ago, W. Axl Kev said:

Does a farmer in Arkansas who agrees with the promotion of farming and industrial manufacturing in America also become an ICE supporter because he votes for the person who promotes the issues most relevant to he/she?

Yes, in my opinion he/she does.  It's not a trivial thing to watch your government torture people at the border who are desperate and seeking help.  If your concern for farming and industrial manufacturing outweighs the immorality of needlessly separating kids from their parents then in my opinion your priorities are fucked up.  You're not a person I can speak highly of or have any interest in spending time with.  On numerous occasions I have voted against the party or politician who's general politics I agree with but I abhor his or her record on other matters that speak to ethics, norms, and values.  That use to be quite common.  But with the Republican party - the party that use to state that character and values mattered - it no longer appears the case.

1 hour ago, W. Axl Kev said:

I agree with you that Trump has governed as a typical Republican in office but, indeed, is that not what the country voted for?

No, it wasn't.  In 2016 Trump ran on a conservative-lite populist platform that was divorced from traditional Republican policies.  It's partly why Trump beat all the 10+ traditional Republicans who ran against him in the 2016 primaries.  If Republicans and the nation at large were looking for a traditional Republican, it could not have picked a more misplaced candidate than Trump.  But as soon as he got into office he essentially adopted Paul Ryan's playbook.  Every year Trump submitted a budget that proposed substantial reductions in healthcare, education, and social security - all things he promised he wouldn't touch when he ran in 2016.  His executive action to stop collecting payroll taxes would essentially bankrupt social security.  That is not something he ran on in 2016.  

Republicans voted for Trump because he was their response to Obama.  He was their bully; a pushback to a country that is increasingly becoming more progressive, more urban, and less white.   The racial resentment that launched Trump's political career and aspirations (ie. the birther movement) was fundamental to his appeal.  Whereas previous Republican candidates were adept at using subtle dog whistle tactics, Trump used a blowhorn to tap into racial distrust and resentment.  

1 hour ago, W. Axl Kev said:

I believe it's a protest vote on the basis Hilary Clinton was clearly so abhorrent to many that she wasn't a viable option so they voted for the Republican alternative rather than solely for Donald Trump

To some extent I agree with you.  Clinton had been badly beaten up by the Benghazi investigation (her approval rate before and after that investigation is night and day); some of it deserved, much of it not.  But it's beyond me that anyone would view both Trump and Clinton as equally bad or unfit, and for reasons that make little sense, decided at the last minute to support Trump.  Again, we're getting back to the government that one deserves.  If that many Americans truly felt like it was a choice between two equally bad candidates, then that speaks more about America than it does Clinton or Trump.  But to give some defence to America here.  I think voting for Trump in 2016 can be viewed as an aberration if he is not re-elected tomorrow.  But if he's re-elected despite how badly he's performed and behaved, then there's no defence for what America has become.  

 

1 hour ago, W. Axl Kev said:

That said, I stand by my point that America is a country, filled with wonderful people, which deserves fine leadership

I won't disagree with you there, save for the fact that perhaps there are not as many wonderful people as we all would like to believe.  America is a very large country and hence there are millions, if not hundreds of millions of great wonderful people.  But if not enough of them can bring themselves to vote responsibly then it gets defined by what those that have no interest in being responsible.  In any well educated and adjusted nation, an election that involves Donald Trump should be a lopsided landslide.  The fact that Trump is guaranteed to get at least 40 percent of the vote is a travesty (my bet is he gets 44-45 percent of the vote).  

1 hour ago, W. Axl Kev said:

I don't blame the individuals disenfranchised by prior or current political options for the country being in a divisive condition. Many great, intelligent people I'm friends with are choosing not to vote because they're deterred by two 70-something white guys fighting to be the best of a bad bunch.

Call me what you will, but I honestly could never call someone truly intelligent (granted, there are many facets to intelligence) if they're sitting out this election because they think both 70 year olds are equally as bad.  Even if you don't like Biden's policies (or the man himself), he's world's apart from who Trump is and what he represents.  Perhaps it's not a matter of intelligence but it speaks to some other attribute.  Character, soul, morals...  How weak and soft is America that the choice between a career politician and a man who has proven himself to be immoral, corrupt, and incompetent is even a close.  How does any moral and objective person look at how poorly Trump has handled the pandemic and think, yeah, I'm going to sit this one out?  Ultimately the American people decided that these two guys are going to represent the two major parties.  If you don't want to vote for either, then vote for a third party candidate.  Take ownership of your country.  Be responsible.  If America is truly nothing more than resigned cynicism, then it and any other country like it are in for an unavoidable steady decline.   

  • Like 1
  • GNFNR 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, downzy said:

We'll have to disagree on this point.  For me Trump has crossed the line long ago, most specifically with the policy of separating kids from their parents at the border, where continued support for Trump is continued support for his worst attributes and policies.  You can't watch and look past Trump shame and belittle Biden for his son's addiction battles and because you like his tax cut.  At some point character, principles, and values supersedes policy preferences.  

Again, I don't genuinely believe that most Trump supporters support kids being separated from parents at the border. Everyone knows its an absurd policy which has no longevity, hence its been fought in court in almost every state in America including bordering states such as Texas and New Mexico.

51 minutes ago, downzy said:

Yes, in my opinion he/she does.  It's not a trivial thing to watch your government torture people at the border who are desperate and seeking help.  If your concern for farming and industrial manufacturing outweighs the immorality of needlessly separating kids from their parents then in my opinion your priorities are fucked up.  You're not a person I can speak highly of or have any interest in spending time with.  On numerous occasions I have voted against the party or politician who's general politics I agree with but I abhor his or her record on other matters that speak to ethics, norms, and values.  That use to be quite common.  But with the Republican party - the party that use to state that character and values mattered - it no longer appears the case.

Disagree. Obama's administration had a tough immigration policy against illegal entry so for many Americans I doubt they genuinely recognize the difference in policy other than the media talking about cages at the border. Not a popular thing to point out but Trump was correct in highlighting it was his predecessors who funded and built said cages at the border. His government is just more public about the policy. If Trump gets 4 more years he'll be unlikely to be able to replicate the mass extradition of illegal migrants than Obama's administration expelled. But in short, I don't think an average working man/woman from farmland America should be held accountable for something outwith their stratosphere. 

51 minutes ago, downzy said:

No, it wasn't.  In 2016 Trump ran on a conservative-lite populist platform that was divorced from traditional Republican policies.  It's why Trump beat all the 10+ traditional Republicans who ran against him in the 2016 primaries.  If Republicans and the nation at large were looking for a traditional Republican, it could not have picked a more misplaced candidate than Trump.  But as soon as he got into office he essentially adopted Paul Ryan's playbook.  Every year Trump submitted a budget that proposed substantial reductions in healthcare, education, and social security - all things he promised he wouldn't touch when he ran in 2016.  His executive action to stop collecting UI would essentially bankrupt social security.  That is not something he ran on in 2016. 

I think we might be arguing about the same thing here. Unless I've misunderstood your original point highlighted that Trump ran like a classic Republican?

51 minutes ago, downzy said:
Quote

Republicans voted for Trump because he was their response to Obama.  He was their bully; a pushback to a country that is increasingly becoming more progressive, more urban, and less white.   The racial resentment that launched Trump's political career and aspirations (ie. the birther movement) was fundamental to his appeal.  Whereas previous Republican candidates were adept at using subtle dog whistle tactics, Trump used a blowhorn to tap into racial distrust and resentment.

I'm not sure I disagree but it didn't truly factor into my original point. I certainly never raised the "more urban" and "less white" sentiments as I can't truly speak to what influence that has had. I simply am not aware of it, if it is true.  

Quote

To some extent I agree with you.  Clinton had been badly beaten up by the Benghazi investigation (her approval rate before and after that investigation is night and day); some of it deserved, much of it not.  But it's beyond me that anyone would view both Trump and Clinton as equally bad or unfit, and for reasons that make little sense, decided at the last minute to support Trump.  Again, we're getting back to the government that one deserves.  If that many Americans truly felt like it was a choice between two equally bad candidates, then that speaks more about America than it does Clinton or Trump.  But to give some defence to America here.  I think voting for Trump in 2016 can be viewed as an aberration if he is not re-elected tomorrow.  But if he's re-elected despite how badly he's performed and behaved, then there's no defence for what America has become. 

I think we're in agreement. From what I saw, Hilary's reputation - enormously damaged by Benghazi - was poor going into the race and it was viewed as the Democrats opening the back door of the White House for something similar.

Interesting side note - a number of people I know here weren't high on Obama as President. I liked him but seemingly the average American thought "Good guy, poor President." 

I

Quote

won't disagree with you there, save for the fact that perhaps there are not as many wonderful people as we all would like to believe.  America is a very large country and hence there are millions, if not hundreds of millions of great wonderful people.  But if not enough of them can bring themselves to vote responsibly then it gets defined by what those that have no interest in being responsible.  In any well educated and adjusted nation, an election that involves Donald Trump should be a lopsided landslide.  The fact that Trump is guaranteed to get at least 40 percent of the vote is a travesty (my bet is he gets 44-45 percent of the vote). 

I'm talking with optimism. I'd like to believe that America, like the UK, like Canada etc. is largely populated by good people who want the best for one another.  It's fractured in its views on a number of important topics but its easy to get lost in individual points which can't be solved by one person's election. Is it too big a job for one man/woman? 

Quote

Call me what you will, but I honestly could never call someone truly intelligent (granted, there are many facets to intelligence) if they're sitting out this election because they think both 70 year olds are equally as bad.  Even if you don't like Biden's policies (or the man himself), he's world's apart from who Trump is and what he represents.  Perhaps it's not a matter of intelligence but it speaks to some other attribute.  Character, soul, morals...  How weak and soft is America that the choice between a career politician and a man who has proven himself to be immoral, corrupt, and incompetent is even a close.  How does any moral and objective person look at how poorly Trump has handled the pandemic and think, yeah, I'm going to sit this one out?  Ultimately the American people decided that these two guys are going to represent the two major parties.  If you don't want to vote for either, then vote for a third party candidate.  Take ownership of your country.  Be responsible.  If America is truly nothing more than resigned cynicism, then it and any other country like it are in for an unavoidable steady decline.

I take your point but its heavily weighed in one direction - I'm attempting to approach this from a middle ground (of sorts). American's, per the constitution, can exercise their democratic right to vote. But they may also exercise their democratic right not to vote. You referred to taking "ownership of your country". Maybe the did already?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, downzy said:

I don't think Biden is unwilling, just that he can't.  The President doesn't have the authority to command a national lockdown.  But he can use the bully pulpit of the White House to pressure state and local governments to shut down if and when they're needed.

 

Yet Trump also couldn't despite being blamed for ''200,000'' lives!

The most overt anti-covid legislative practice excised by European countries, not to mention other countries like New Zealand, is the use of national lockdown. It transpires that Biden would no more use this than the chap you blame for the 200,000 lives. Utter hypocrisy. 

I suspect the death ratio would not have been much different if Biden (or Obama for that matter) was in charge.

Link to post
Share on other sites
40 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Yet Trump also couldn't despite being blamed for ''200,000'' lives!

The most overt anti-covid legislative practice excised by European countries, not to mention other countries like New Zealand, is the use of national lockdown. It transpires that Biden would no more use this than the chap you blame for the 200,000 lives. Utter hypocrisy. 

I suspect the death ratio would not have been much different if Biden (or Obama for that matter) was in charge.

At least Obama and Biden would listen to science. A mask wouldn't be a political statement. They wouldn't  downplay the pandemic. They wouldn't make bizarre comments about bleach. They would make sure there is social distance and they would protect the WH staffers, themselves and their families.

 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, DieselDaisy said:

Yet Trump also couldn't despite being blamed for ''200,000'' lives!

The most overt anti-covid legislative practice excised by European countries, not to mention other countries like New Zealand, is the use of national lockdown. It transpires that Biden would no more use this than the chap you blame for the 200,000 lives. Utter hypocrisy. 

I suspect the death ratio would not have been much different if Biden (or Obama for that matter) was in charge.

You keep on believing what you want, regardless of what simple observation and research says otherwise:

https://www.businessinsider.com/covid-19-deaths-improved-in-rich-countries-except-us-jama-2020-10

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, W. Axl Kev said:

Again, I don't genuinely believe that most Trump supporters support kids being separated from parents at the border. Everyone knows its an absurd policy which has no longevity, hence its been fought in court in almost every state in America including bordering states such as Texas and New Mexico.

I would bet a majority were fine with it. His approval rate never dropped below 40 percent when this policy was enacted and reported on.  It’s beyond explanation how one could be morally opposed to the policy, which is tantamount to torture, and still view Trump in a positive light.

The litigation and legality of the policy is irrelevant; it does not speak to the morality of the action and Trump’s supporters overt or tacit acceptance of it. 

1 hour ago, W. Axl Kev said:

Obama's administration had a tough immigration policy against illegal entry so for many Americans I doubt they genuinely recognize the difference in policy other than the media talking about cages at the border. Not a popular thing to point out but Trump was correct in highlighting it was his predecessors who funded and built said cages at the border. His government is just more public about the policy.

You could not provide a more disingenuous description or comparison if you tried. Obama’s immigration policy granted legal protection to DREAMERs (which Trump has attempted to rescind). Obama’s immigration enforcement was almost exclusively targeting illegal residents who broke state and federal laws. Obama never forced refugee claimants to wait in Mexico where most are extorted, abused, and often killed. The cages built in 2014 were a last minute effort to handled the tens of thousands of migrant kids who were fleeing central America without their parents. Kids were arriving so often that fenced in facilities were built to facilitate the crushing numbers that were arriving so often. At no point was there ever a policy under the Obama administration to separate parents from their children for those seeking asylum. 

2 hours ago, W. Axl Kev said:

Trump ran like a classic Republican?

No, just the opposite. His 2016 was a drastic departure from conservative-Republican orthodox. Americans elected Trump in the hopes he would be something different. Instead he became just another Paul Ryan conservative once in power. 

2 hours ago, W. Axl Kev said:

Interesting side note - a number of people I know here weren't high on Obama as President. I liked him but seemingly the average American thought "Good guy, poor President.

It sounds like you run with a certain circle who likely always vote Republican. 

2 hours ago, W. Axl Kev said:

I'm talking with optimism. I'd like to believe that America, like the UK, like Canada etc. is largely populated by good people who want the best for one another.

Considering many in the Trump campaign having closing arguments that amount to nothing more than “vote for Trump to make liberals cry,” I’m going to have to disagree with you again. 

2 hours ago, W. Axl Kev said:

But they may also exercise their democratic right not to vote. You referred to taking "ownership of your country". Maybe the did already?

By checking out?  That’s a cop out. 

Yes, people have the right not to vote. But by doing so a person also shirks their responsibility to be a good citizen. Americans are so focused on rights they lose sight of responsibilities and duty. And they will continue to suffer for it. I say this with respect to America not being alone. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Padme said:

At least Obama and Biden would listen to science. A mask wouldn't be a political statement. They wouldn't  downplay the pandemic. They wouldn't make bizarre comments about bleach. They would make sure there is social distance and they would protect the WH staffers, themselves and their families.

 

For Europe and the rest of the world, including governments which also possess federal constitutions like the United States, the science oft leads to national lockdown, yet we are told Biden would be nor more willing or constitutionally capable to impose a lockdown than Donald Trump.

1 hour ago, downzy said:

You keep on believing what you want, regardless of what simple observation and research says otherwise:

https://www.businessinsider.com/covid-19-deaths-improved-in-rich-countries-except-us-jama-2020-10

How many of those countries possess a national lockdown?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

For Europe and the rest of the world, including governments which also possess federal constitutions like the United States, the science oft leads to national lockdown, yet we are told Biden would be nor more willing or constitutionally capable to impose a lockdown than Donald Trump.

As I said Biden is going to listen to scientists. He is going to look at data from different States. He is gonna talk to Governors. Based on infomation he could call for a nation lockdown or a given county or city lockdown. He may make mask use mandatory all over the country. He is going to do something about it. He won't pretend there is nothing going on

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Padme said:

As I said Biden is going to listen to scientists. He is going to look at data from different States. He is gonna talk to Governors. Based on infomation he could call for a nation lockdown or a given county or city lockdown. He may make mask use mandatory all over the country. He is going to do something about it. He won't pretend there is nothing going on

If he is willing to do that, then that is significantly beyond Trump's positioning and this conversation is needless, but listening and looking is just waffle. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • downzy changed the title to The US Politics/Elections Thread
  • downzy locked this topic
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...