The Next President is...

[Guardian]

And if he were to actually achieve bringing some of the country together, then here comes the left with the 25th amendment.

[FLEA]

30 minutes ago, Guardian said:

I’m concerned that Biden has tried to reach out to trump supporters in word only. He has already said he will make a sweeping amount of executive decisions to undo what trump has done. So reaching out doesn’t really mean what he thinks it means. It means he changes the things he and his party want while saying hi to the trump supporters and effectively saying hope you feel better and then going on his merry reduced mental capacity way.

Yeah his statements on unity were extraordinarily tone deaf given he came from the administration that started the great divide. It's political theater. He has no intention of unifying the US public. 

[drewpey]

18 minutes ago, FLEA said:

Yeah his statements on unity were extraordinarily tone deaf given he came from the administration that started the great divide. It's political theater. He has no intention of unifying the US public. 

What in your opinion were Obama's most divisive actions?  Do you feel like Trump was "payback" for the division you felt under Obama?

[Sua Sponte]

2 hours ago, FLEA said:

Yeah his statements on unity were extraordinarily tone deaf given he came from the administration that started the great divide. It's political theater. He has no intention of unifying the US public. 

Uh, the “Great Divide” started before that. That was Newt Gingrich being Speaker of the House going all in on Bill Clinton for getting a blowie from an intern and lying about it. But the economy was great, Clinton was popular, and it backfired on Newt and he left the House. I think it would’ve continued, however 9/11 happened within the first two years of Bush Jr’s tenure, and the country came together when OEF/OIF kicked off. Now it’s turned into some tribalism between both parties. I think Trump losing is great for the GOP because they can stop faking that they support Trump’s policies and have an imposter as the face of the party.

Edited November 8, 2020 by Sua Sponte

[drewpey]

18 minutes ago, Sua Sponte said:

I think Trump losing is great for the GOP because they can stop faking that they support Trump’s policies and have an imposter as the face of the party.

This is something I haven't heard before.  Up until now most republicans I spoke with are diametrically opposed to your statement.  They love his policies and what he has done, but claim to not like the man himself.  What Trump policies do you think will be discarded by the GOP in his absence?

[FLEA]

39 minutes ago, drewpey said:

What in your opinion were Obama's most divisive actions?  Do you feel like Trump was "payback" for the division you felt under Obama?

I think one example Obama created an enormous divide was when he decided to engage in race relations following the legal shooting of Treyvon Martin. Whether he had a moral obligation to do this or not, at this juncture, doesn't really matter. What happened fallowing that was the state sponsored support of a racial narrative that was diminutive to suburban and rural whites and a refusal to uphold the law. 

Trump absolutely was a counter-reaction to that. The cancel culture that ferminated in the United States skewed polling statistics and the idea of a silent majority began to gain momentum in whispered circles. 

I think the reason Democrats have a hard time seeing Obama as an exasperation of the divide was because in their own echo chambers everything was peachy. Trump being elected was a shock but they saw him as a charismatic cult figure that swayed millions of voters against the US. They don't realize he didnt sway anyone. They already felt marginalized. They were free to discuss it until Trump took power and really only a year or so after that. 

To Sua Sponge's point, fair. But if anything 9/11 could have been a great oppurtunity for healing. We probably pissed it away with Iraq 2. 

[17D_guy]

7 minutes ago, drewpey said:

This is something I haven't heard before.  Up until now most republicans I spoke with are diametrically opposed to your statement.  They love his policies and what he has done, but claim to not like the man himself.  What Trump policies do you think will be discarded by the GOP in his absence?

I think they're going to modify the immigration stance, and maybe finally push into place good, legal immigration changes.  Perhaps take a look at the border in total (Canadian, increased human trafficking in ports). End "kids in cages" legislatively.

Get rid of traitors names for US military bases.

They'll definitely get back to caring about the deficit, and not robbing social security.

[dream big]

2 hours ago, Guardian said:

And if he were to actually achieve bringing some of the country together, then here comes the left with the 25th amendment.

Yeah... Kamala will be your President by February, then this country will have real problems.  Will be entertaining to see Nikki Haley wipe the floor with her in 2024. 

[17D_guy]

4 minutes ago, FLEA said:

What happened fallowing that was the state sponsored support of a racial narrative that was diminutive to suburban and rural whites and a refusal to uphold the law. 

Was this pushing for more civil rights investigations into police abuses or something else? 

Quote

Trump absolutely was a counter-reaction to that. The cancel culture that ferminated in the United States skewed polling statistics and the idea of a silent majority began to gain momentum in whispered circles.

I think also the seeds sown by the right leaning news sources about him as the "worst President ever" further pushed that narrative along.  Obama did some shady shit, as all presidents do, but the vitriol of my friends who only consumed Fox surprised me.  I think there does need to be something done about the conglomerate media sources, both print, news and social media.  What that solution is...I don't know.  But the ability for them to spread misinformation without repercussion, or stifle speech to skew one way is cancer to a free society.

However, now that this election is over...is there a silent majority?  Between the loud/proud Trump supporters and the Biden supporters there's another space?  Trump supporters were never quiet, and only got louder as the election came closer.  I don't think there's some silent majority.  As some other commentators have said, this a repudiation of Trump, not of conservative/right-wing policies.  I agree with that, voted almost entirely red except for the President...despite what my friends/family think.

Quote

I think the reason Democrats have a hard time seeing Obama as an exasperation of the divide was because in their own echo chambers everything was peachy. Trump being elected was a shock but they saw him as a charismatic cult figure that swayed millions of voters against the US. They don't realize he didnt sway anyone. They already felt marginalized. They were free to discuss it until Trump took power and really only a year or so after that. 

Agreed.  I think if Trump had just taken COVID seriously we'd be having a completely different conversation.  It has hit minority communities pretty hard, and while he picked up more votes there (great!) it probably was  too much given the "racism in the white house" narrative on top of the plague.  Even if he kept tweeting like crazy, dog whistling to conspiracy and maybe racist groups/militias.  Anecdotal, but I had a lot of officer friends who're done with him for COVID response alone.  The "I'm not responsible" comment in particular hit my male friends hard.

[Seadogs]

54 minutes ago, drewpey said:

This is something I haven't heard before.  Up until now most republicans I spoke with are diametrically opposed to your statement.  They love his policies and what he has done, but claim to not like the man himself.  What Trump policies do you think will be discarded by the GOP in his absence?

You think Sua Sponte is Republican? That's as disingenuous as thinking there is no impropriety going on with the election. You all are jumping the gun on this one. Trump has not conceded yet and will fight this to the end. If there is impropriety found then he will win. I'm warning all of you lefties to be careful, you might be surprised when Dec. 14th comes. 

[Homestar]

All Trump had to do was have a semi-competent response to COVID-19. He couldn’t even manage semi-competent. 

[Homestar]

7 minutes ago, Seadogs said:

You think Sua Sponte is Republican? That's as disingenuous as thinking there is no impropriety going on with the election. You all are jumping the gun on this one. Trump has not conceded yet and will fight this to the end. If there is impropriety found then he will win. I'm warning all of you lefties to be careful, you might be surprised when Dec. 14th comes. 

You sound as unhinged as Trump does on Twitter today. 
 

And before you go name-calling, I’m no leftist. 
 

[Waingro]

3 hours ago, Lord Ratner said:

Biden's win was small, so not a mandate.

It's looking like he'll come away with 306 electoral votes, more than Trump won with in 2016. Which Kellyanne Conway at the time called a landslide and a blowout. 

 

You're right about the shifting demographics. Democrats should be concerned, especially in places like Florida. I think there are some weak areas for the GOP too, that they should look to shore up. Arizona was a surprise, and Texas was closer than it had any reason to be. 

[brickhistory]

Recounts likely, so it ain't over.

If Biden wins, it's vindication.

If Trump wins, it's shenanigans.

Have i got that about right?

 

 

 

Oh, and fcuk Pierre Delecto...epitomy of the GOP and why Trump arose.

[17D_guy]

14 minutes ago, brickhistory said:

Recounts likely, so it ain't over.

If Biden wins, it's vindication.

If Trump wins, it's shenanigans.

Have i got that about right?

Oh.. is this better?

If Biden wins, it's shenanigans.

If Trump wins, it's vindication.

 

Cause that's what we're doing right now.

[Sua Sponte]

18 minutes ago, brickhistory said:

Recounts likely, so it ain't over.

If Biden wins, it's vindication.

If Trump wins, it's shenanigans.

Have i got that about right?

 

 

 

Oh, and fcuk Pierre Delecto...epitomy of the GOP and why Trump arose.

How often do recounts change the outcome of an election? Oh, are we just recounting the states that were close initially and Trump lost? 

[Sua Sponte]

1 hour ago, Seadogs said:

You think Sua Sponte is Republican? That's as disingenuous as thinking there is no impropriety going on with the election. You all are jumping the gun on this one. Trump has not conceded yet and will fight this to the end. If there is impropriety found then he will win. I'm warning all of you lefties to be careful, you might be surprised when Dec. 14th comes. 

I'm just shocked that your election map was way off. Seems like you have the current political climate "dialed in."

[slackline]

30 minutes ago, brickhistory said:

Recounts likely, so it ain't over.

If Biden wins, it's vindication.

If Trump wins, it's shenanigans.

Have i got that about right?

 

 

 

Oh, and fcuk Pierre Delecto...epitomy of the GOP and why Trump arose.

Are you serious Clark?

 

Absolutely valid that there will be recounts.  Absolutely valid that Trump could still pull this one out.  He'll need some luck though:

From 2009 to 2019, there were 5,778 statewide general elections, according to the non-partisan group FairVote. In that span there were 31 completed recounts.  Less than 10% resulted in an overturned outcome.  Those that were overturned were in elections much closer than anything Trump is going to contest.  The overturned counts were with margins of less than .05%.  We're looking at over 2.5% in NV, .6% in AZ, .6% in WI, .2% in GA and .7% in PA.  I'm not too great of a mathematician, but none of those are less than point zero five percent...   

https://www.fairvote.org/a_survey_and_analysis_of_statewide_election_recounts

 

Correct me if I'm wrong (not uncommon), but it's the Trump camp that is crying about shenanigans in the elections.  Everyone else, I mean I haven't taken a poll or anything, but everyone else says that the system works.  We should let the system do its thing.  You realize the scale of coordination that would have had to take place IOT make it appear as though Trump was in the lead, then craftily overturn it slowly?  Yeah, sure the DNC is competent enough to pull that off.  Okay.  

 

More likely, as has been repeated ad naseum on here, on every news site, to include Fox News, this was predicted because Trump encouraged in-person voting instead of mail in voting.  That would give a lead initially to Trump, then a slowly diminishing lead eventually resulting in potential overturning of those leads.  Follow the logic train brick.  You guys keep claiming to love logic so much, but never seem to pay attention to it.  

 

So, I don't want you to feel like I didn't answer your question, no, no you did not get that right... 

[slackline]

1 hour ago, Seadogs said:

You think Sua Sponte is Republican? That's as disingenuous as thinking there is no impropriety going on with the election. You all are jumping the gun on this one. Trump has not conceded yet and will fight this to the end. If there is impropriety found then he will win. I'm warning all of you lefties to be careful, you might be surprised when Dec. 14th comes. 

Should we keep a running tally of your incredibly bold predictions?  You're on a roll.

[FLEA]

1 hour ago, Homestar said:

All Trump had to do was have a semi-competent response to COVID-19. He couldn’t even manage semi-competent. 

I just finished a whole paper on the COVID-19 response and I'm convinced it couldn't have played out differently under any other leadership. 

Geographically, COVID played out in 3 regions. Asia, Europe, and the US. Asia had a fairly easy time suppressing it due to a combination of cultural and political factors. For China, it was a fantastic demonstration of Confucian principles for a better society and the suppression of human rights for the common good. This was a narrative they honestly wanted. In Korea and Japan, your average citizen has a higher level of social responsibility than in Europe or the US.

So people have been comparing us to Europe. I've been in Europe since COVID began. (Almost, was actually in Asia as it started). What most people don't recognize, and if you talk to a German, Dutch, or Dane, they will tell you, is that they are tolerating lockdowns to the extent that they are because their countries run enormous social programs that have basically began paying people to not go to work. The effect on people's livelihoods has pretty much gone untouched. And because these countries do not have looming deficits, they have plenty of credit to borrow against to keep that going. 

The US is in a different pot. There is the balance of civil liberties and public health, the inadequacy of the CDC pandemic response plan (that was written under Obama by the way) and the inability to support masses of Americans long term from unemployment. I think the cards were against the US from the beginning to be the hardest hit. I do believe Trump earnestly was trying to not instill panic which is why he rejected visible signs of panic like masks. This is likely what his advisors were trying to tell him to do. However, I'm also strongly convinced that he has something like Asperger's syndrome, and he couldn't read the audience sensitively enough to realize this was having the reverse effect he thought it would. 

That said, Joe Biden is walking into a mine field and he doesn't realize it. The economic predictions are that the global economic collapse from COVID will actually function on a delay. 2023-2024 is the predicted year. The virus is also too far gone in society. He will never reverse the trends to a manageable level. Unless he somehow magically cures Corona in his first 6 months, I don't think he will survive the political fallout that is going to come from its wake. 

 

[slackline]

17 minutes ago, FLEA said:

The US is in a different pot. There is the balance of civil liberties and public health, the inadequacy of the CDC pandemic response plan (that was written under Obama by the way) and the inability to support masses of Americans long term from unemployment. I think the cards were against the US from the beginning to be the hardest hit. I do believe Trump earnestly was trying to not instill panic which is why he rejected visible signs of panic like masks. This is likely what his advisors were trying to tell him to do. However, I'm also strongly convinced that he has something like Asperger's syndrome, and he couldn't read the audience sensitively enough to realize this was having the reverse effect he thought it would. 

 

 

I agree with much of what you say, but I'm curious as to what you're basing your assumptions of Trump's "earnest" intent on, or why you think he would only be doing it because that is what is advisors were telling him to say initially.  

 

On the medical conditions stuff, I don't get why people with zero access to the individual, zero medical training, especially in that particular specialty feel free to speculate on medical conditions.  All these Monday morning quarterbacks claim sleepy Joe has dementia, and others say Trump is crazy or has Asperger's, or whatever.  Could it simply be that Joe Biden is a 77 year old man, so a little slower in speech?  I'm no expert, but I've talked to a lot of old people over the years.  They just aren't as spry as they used to be.  Could it be that Trump is simply an A-hole that thinks he's smarter than everyone else?  Everything you're saying could very well be true.  It's just interesting that everyone acts like they KNOW.  

Edited November 8, 2020 by slackline

[slackline]

You guys remember when Trump tweeted: "Vladimir Putin said today about Hillary and Dems: In my opinion it is humiliating.  "One must be able to lose with dignity." So True". He said that on Christmas Eve in 2016.  

For anyone else, that would feel pretty silly right about now.  But since he doesn't feel he lost, it doesn't apply.  Funny huh!?

Reminds me of when Obama read the mean tweet on Jimmy Kimmel.  Trump said Obama would go down as one of the worst presidents in history.  Obama then said, "At least I will have been a president..."  He even dropped the mic.  It was hilarious, but like Seadogs predictions, it didn't age well.  

[FLEA]

4 minutes ago, slackline said:

I agree with much of what you say, but I'm curious as to what you're basing your assumptions of Trump's "earnest" intent on, or why you think he would only be doing it because that is what is advisors were telling him to say initially.  

 

On the medical conditions stuff, I don't get why people with zero access to the individual, zero medical training, especially in that particular specialty feel free to speculate on medical conditions.  All these Monday morning quarterbacks claim sleepy Joe has dementia, and others say Trump is crazy or has Asperger's, or whatever.  Could it simply be that Joe Biden is a 77 year old man, so a little slower in speech?  I'm no expert, but I've talked to a lot of old people over the years.  They just aren't as spry as they used to be.  Could it be that Trump is simply an A-hole that thinks he's smarter than everyone else?  Everything you're saying could very well be true.  It's just interesting that everyone acts like they KNOW.  

Haha. No good answer on that one except that I have an overwhelmingly high faith in humanity that most people would just find naïve. I'm also looking at it from a rational stand point and he doesn't have a lot to gain by pushing the agenda the way he did. Only a very very small base of people actually thought mask wear was an infringement of their civil rights. Even if that group did exist inside his base, it was a small portion of his base at most, and he certainly wasn't going to lose them to a democrat over something as silly as masks. 

 

Regarding Joe's medical condition, I think we should all address the elephant in the room which is we really need to start thinking about an age cap on the presidency, and any political office for that matter. I do speculate on his health, but I think the more damning trend is that we keep electing people that really have no stake in holding this country together other than to set a legacy for themselves. They are also too far disconnected from the working class. (Shit most people their age haven't been working class in 20 years, they're retired!)

I'm strongly starting to believe if you haven't started your first term by 65 you need to just step aside and let a younger actor take the stage.

[SurelySerious]

9 minutes ago, slackline said:

I agree with much of what you say, but I'm curious as to what you're basing your assumptions of Trump's "earnest" intent on, or why you think he would only be doing it because that is what is advisors were telling him to say initially.  

 

On the medical conditions stuff, I don't get why people with zero access to the individual, zero medical training, especially in that particular specialty feel free to speculate on medical conditions.  All these Monday morning quarterbacks claim sleepy Joe has dementia, and others say Trump is crazy or has Asperger's, or whatever.  Could it simply be that Joe Biden is a 77 year old man, so a little slower in speech?  I'm no expert, but I've talked to a lot of old people over the years.  They just aren't as spry as they used to be.  Could it be that Trump is simply an A-hole that thinks he's smarter than everyone else?  Everything you're saying could very well be true.  It's just interesting that everyone acts like they KNOW.  

I don’t know, but I do think that a) from listening to Joe there is no further plan, just talk of “a plan” for Covid, b) the President no matter who right now cannot do anything to actually affect how Covid goes, and c) he’s not actually going to DO anything but then say “my plan worked because I listened to science and experts.”

Trump would absolutely do the same regarding having done nothing of efficacy and claiming victory.  

[slackline]

2 minutes ago, FLEA said:

 

I'm strongly starting to believe if you haven't started your first term by 65 you need to just step aside and let a younger actor take the stage.

I couldn't agree more with you on this.  I don't think you should be able to run for president until 50, reason being you've actually lived some life to have experience on a large swath of subjects, yet young enough to still be "in touch" with younger people.  No older than 65 because you're now officially too old to really be in touch with what is going on.  Only my opinion.  No data to back it up.