Jump to content
Navv

General US Politics

Poll  

311 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you vote a third party?

    • Yes
      99
    • No
      129
    • Maybe
      83
  2. 2. Are you content with the results of the election?

    • Yes
      57
    • No
      133
    • Indifferent
      50


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, Deenward said:

If Biden isn't able to rally that kind of fervor around him by November, then we're screwed. 

He doesn't need to. Base enthusiasm is overall a meaningless metric. There's a shitload of people who are straight up anti-liberal, anti-change, anti-left, etc who think Biden's a socialist. Which is just hilarious, because the left thinks Biden's a corporate shill.

I would say no matter who comes out of any given Democratic primary (save Barack Obama) would have a small voterbase enthusiasm. For instance, a lot of D voters did not like Sanders, contrary to what everyone on social media says. I had hit a point during the primaries where I'd sooner vote for Biden than Sanders.

We also haven't really begun a proper campaign yet... Biden only just clinched delegates this week, and we still haven't seen the full force of Obama campaigning for Biden just yet. There's 5 months left, for better or for worse.

Although, a lot of leftist twitter won't be convinced even if Biden says "abolish the police, abolish private insurance, make us go full communist" so them amplifying Biden hate is useless to me at this point. He's successfully swung a lot of Trump-voting old people towards him (by around 25%? they're the voting population) and that's one of the more important factors. I doubt the youth would rather vote Trump over Biden though, unless they want to accelerate us into ruin and fuck up a shitload of people's lives.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't say it's a meaningless metric. The small sample size makes it impossible to produce a definitive conclusion about how the whole country feels, but a lack of voter enthusiasm greatly contributed to Trump's victory in 2016. Voter turnout was historically low, and a significant portion of that can be drawn to the number of people who disliked Clinton as a candidate. If enthusiasm drops too far, apathy that can lead people to not votes in. Overall enthusiasm to vote in November is extremely high right now, particularly among Democratic voters, but I'm not sure that alone will carry Biden to November. I'll grant we'll have to wait to a few months before an even somewhat accurate picture can be painted of how Biden will stack up to Trump, but I do think data like that is relevant to gauging how Biden is resonating with American people. Even though they didn't come out in droves for Sanders, young people could still be a critical demographic come election-time, and many are more privy to vote if it's a candidate they can get hyped about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, Lord Raven said:

There's a shitload of people who are straight up anti-liberal, anti-change, anti-left, etc who think Biden's a socialist. Which is just hilarious, because the left thinks Biden's a corporate shill.

And I find that a dangerous combination. If enough people on the right think Biden is a dangerous socialist then they have reasons to fanatically oppose him. If too many people on the left think Biden is too right wing to vote for then many people might just not even bother showing up at all. 

Having the center has always been more important then the fringes but losing both fringes completely still isn't good at all. And we do live in a time where the center is rapidly giving up ground to the fringes on both sides of the spectrum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Those people didn't show up to vote for Sanders and let Biden completely wipe the floor with Sanders in the primary. I am not too concerned about the far left fringe. The moderates are much more likely to show up.

I can see more leftist bile leading to a moderate campaign again.

45 minutes ago, Deenward said:

I wouldn't say it's a meaningless metric.

It is in the sense that Trump had all of that and still won by razor thin margins in 3 swing states in 2016. Against a candidate who is known for the antipathy she draws.

All it pretty much shows is that Trump has a cult. People who kept the Sanders-Clinton primary close clearly went to Joe Biden, or showed up to vote. I would say you don't need voter enthusiasm for a specific candidate to get people to show up, and Trump is so off-putting and such a trainwreck that people will turn the heavens just to vote.

Edited by Lord Raven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is there anything different this time compared to 2016? Trump fucked up pretty bad lately on a scale that rivals Jackson, Hoover, and Nixon, but he also made some serious fuck ups that would destroy any other politician during his 2016 campaign. We all thought Clinton had it in the bag back then, but she still lost. Like between Hillary and Biden, was the only reason Hillary lost was because she was greatly disliked? Does Biden draw less negative reaction because he has a more ceremonial role when he was VP, so people have less to be mad about him?

While I do think Trump's chances of getting reelected is less after all his fuck ups, he defied expectations back in 2016, and I am afraid that we might underestimate him again for 2020.

Edited by XRay

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frankly, if you're still on the fence about the two presidential candidates for 2020, you're no moderate. Nor are you "misinformed". You can only keep your head under the sand so long before coming up for air and seeing the mess made of this country. 

2 hours ago, Deenward said:

The small sample size makes it impossible to produce a definitive conclusion about how the whole country feels, but a lack of voter enthusiasm greatly contributed to Trump's victory in 2016. Voter turnout was historically low,

No it was not, neither party underperformed in that election. It came down to the electoral college, not numbers. 

Share this post


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

Is there anything different this time compared to 2016?

Trump's no longer a wild card or an outsider. He's been president for four years. He actually has a record, he's not a blank slate.

7 minutes ago, XRay said:

Like between Hillary and Biden, was the only reason Hillary lost was because she was greatly disliked?

Yep, and if you listen to 538 and any of its podcasts (the one that said Trump had a 30% chance of winning directly prior to the election) they're saying that his lead is massive. Currently, Biden has like a +8-9% lead on the generic ballot at this point in time, compared to Clinton/Obama/McCain's lead of like ~1.4% in the past 3 elections (at this point in time).

10 minutes ago, XRay said:

Does Biden draw less negative reaction because he has a more ceremonial role when he was VP, so people have less to be mad about him?

He didn't have a ceremonial role as VP. But he was apart of a mostly scandal-free administration.

Hillary was the wife of Bill Clinton. Someone worded it very well; who the fuck is Joe Biden's wife? vs Who the fuck is Hillary Clinton's husband? You can answer one of these questions with a lot of emotion and fact, you can't answer the other one without research.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
26 minutes ago, Glennstavos said:

No it was not, neither party underperformed in that election. It came down to the electoral college, not numbers. 

I agree that the electoral college is the big reason Trump got elected. However, only around 60% of eligible U.S. citizens voted. The numbers for how many people are voting overall have gone up, but that's just because the U.S. population has been growing year after year. 

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-voter-turnout-records-history-obama-clinton-2016-11

My erroneous statement about it being the lowest turn count in 20 years came from a CNN article with data they admitted was then incomplete, because they had yet to tabulate outstanding ballots. For reference:

https://www.cnn.com/2016/11/11/politics/popular-vote-turnout-2016/index.html

Edited by Deenward

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Deenward said:

I agree that the electoral college is the big reason Trump got elected. However, only around 60% of eligible U.S. citizens voted. The numbers for how many people are voting overall have gone up, but that's just because the U.S. population has been growing year after year. 

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-voter-turnout-records-history-obama-clinton-2016-11

Always have to laugh at some of these studies: "when you look at voter turnout as a percentage, it has decreased or stagnated in the last century." Gee, it's almost like a lot more Americans have been enfranchised to vote in the last century. Yeah, give me the data on 1876's election. Totally relevant. And the only difference in eligible voting population turnout, according to the article, is a measly two percent between 2016, and 2008, the latter being a landmark election for many reasons. It's a high bar, when a more appropriate comparison should be drawn to 2012. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Glennstavos said:

Always have to laugh at some of these studies: "when you look at voter turnout as a percentage, it has decreased or stagnated in the last century." Gee, it's almost like a lot more Americans have been enfranchised to vote in the last century. Yeah, give me the data on 1876's election. Totally relevant. And the only difference in eligible voting population turnout, according to the article, is a measly two percent between 2016, and 2008, the latter being a landmark election for many reasons. It's a high bar, when a more appropriate comparison should be drawn to 2012. 

Yeah, that's true. I'll concede that point. 

One thing that's definitely changed compared to 2016 is how big of a threat people perceive Trump to be. Before, Trump seemed like a joke of a candidate; a billionaire celebrity basket case with no chance of winning a presidential election. Even after he secured the republican nomination, people (myself included) still felt he didn't have a legitimate shot. Now that we've had the displeasure of seeing him get elected, cultivate and spread a toxic cult of personality, and fan the flames of prejudice and discrimination against minorities through abysmal policy decisions and inflammatory rhetoric, a lot more people are clamoring to vote this November, just to get him out of office. He's regressed the U.S.A in so many ways, and it'll take a long time to change the tides of the destructive waves he created.

Edited by Deenward

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/9/2020 at 10:52 AM, Lord Raven said:

This is...  not a thing, sadly. He just said this.

I doubt he'll lose too many supporters from saying shit like this, which is the crazy part.

I'm not even thinking about this. Vote Biden.

This tweet is outrageous of course, but is also something extremely dangerous.  All it takes is one of his hardcore supporters to take this tweet to heart and assault or kill Martin Gugino.  He is suggesting Martin could be ANTIFA and he has dedicated them a super dangerous violent threat to democracy and America.  This is much different than making fun or insulting some celebrity or someone he doesn't like.  He is calling this guy a terrorist.  Trump has a cult of millions and many would die for him.

 

 

Share this post


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

This tweet is outrageous of course, but is also something extremely dangerous.  All it takes is one of his hardcore supporters to take this tweet to heart and assault or kill Martin Gugino.  He is suggesting Martin could be ANTIFA and he has dedicated them a super dangerous violent threat to democracy and America.  This is much different than making fun or insulting some celebrity or someone he doesn't like.  He is calling this guy a terrorist.  Trump has a cult of millions and many would die for him.

 

Hm, if Trump is calling the guy a terrorist, that sounds like a rather serious accusation coming from a government person. Can he sue Trump for defamation if he gets assaulted by a Trumpster?

Share this post


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

This tweet is outrageous of course, but is also something extremely dangerous.  All it takes is one of his hardcore supporters to take this tweet to heart and assault or kill Martin Gugino.  He is suggesting Martin could be ANTIFA and he has dedicated them a super dangerous violent threat to democracy and America.  This is much different than making fun or insulting some celebrity or someone he doesn't like.  He is calling this guy a terrorist.  Trump has a cult of millions and many would die for him.

 

 

And its not the first time Trump did this. He also implied really heavily that the whistleblower in his impeachment was a traitor who should be shot. And I don't think he did so without knowing the consequences of saying this to his zealously loyal base. In fact with one of his sons trying to reveal the whistleblower's identity to the public I assume that either they were trying to engineer one of his cultist radicalizing and doing the whistleblower harm, or at the very least spooking any potential whistleblower by raising the possibility of it happening.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still wonder, why Martin Gugino was in a square filled with like 50 police officers equipped with riot gear in the first place?

I would be pretty scared to be anywhere near 3 meters of them, let alone arguing with them, especially during curfew, even without the george floyd incident contextualizing all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, Perfect Infinitive Exitus said:

I still wonder, why Martin Gugino was in a square filled with like 50 police officers equipped with riot gear in the first place?

I would be pretty scared to be anywhere near 3 meters of them, let alone arguing with them, especially during curfew, even without the george floyd incident contextualizing all.

Because he was protesting lmao how is this relevant 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Perfect Infinitive Exitus said:

I still wonder, why Martin Gugino was in a square filled with like 50 police officers equipped with riot gear in the first place?

I would be pretty scared to be anywhere near 3 meters of them, let alone arguing with them, especially during curfew, even without the george floyd incident contextualizing all.

Speaking of context, do you realize that your question is akin to "Why did the chicken cross the road?" 

You got a system that has been fattened to the gills at the expense of other public services/trusts, and you expect people cognizant of this very fact to quietly and unassumingly express their misgivings?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, XRay said:

Hm, if Trump is calling the guy a terrorist, that sounds like a rather serious accusation coming from a government person. Can he sue Trump for defamation if he gets assaulted by a Trumpster?

He can sue for defamation, usually a hard type of lawsuit to win, but it would be pretty clear in this case.  Though one of the few things Trump excels at is getting away with crime.

3 hours ago, Etrurian emperor said:

And its not the first time Trump did this. He also implied really heavily that the whistleblower in his impeachment was a traitor who should be shot. And I don't think he did so without knowing the consequences of saying this to his zealously loyal base. In fact with one of his sons trying to reveal the whistleblower's identity to the public I assume that either they were trying to engineer one of his cultist radicalizing and doing the whistleblower harm, or at the very least spooking any potential whistleblower by raising the possibility of it happening.  

Yes the whistleblower.  Yes it was obvious to either kill the whistleblower or severely threaten him and intimidate other people.  His revenge on anyone involved with his impeachment pretty much shows, if you speak out against him you will lose your career.  His base still supports him.  Wonder how they will react when someone ascends into power that they don't like, and observing how Trump can get away with all this, abuses his powers the same way or even takes it further? Yeah of course they don't think ahead.  

In Arizona a white woman grabbed a latino woman's arm and told her to go back to her own country.  The latino woman slapped that slob in the face, the racist was lucky that is all she got.  

In New Jersey a white corrections officer set up a counter protest where some uneducated racist white men re enacted the kneeling thing while saying it was Floyd's fault he died not the cop.  Trump banners in the background.  Well several of them have been fired.  

Both of these were caught on video, that white woman I believe also lost her job.  

Anyways racism is alive and well, but those that do it publicly are mostly being punished/slammed and the majority seem very harshly against it as it should be.  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Karimlan said:

Speaking of context, do you realize that your question is akin to "Why did the chicken cross the road?" 

You got a system that has been fattened to the gills at the expense of other public services/trusts, and you expect people cognizant of this very fact to quietly and unassumingly express their misgivings?

As someone who is libertarian, i am almost fundamentally against public services aside from national security.

I think it is often those public services, which prevent the individual from rising to the top.

The police is there to protect people, who genuinly try and try hard and i think no matter in what circumstance you are, you can always always make it, especially in america.

I also think that instead of the police getting so much money, we need more rights to hold a firearm for the individual, that way they can protect themselves and others, without having to alert the police in the flrst place, which will allow for far less use of police and therefore an automatic shrinking.

I think the reason america and individual cities like hong kong became such big economic superpowers in the first place, is abolishing regulation and services, except for those, that allow people to work and work freely.

Edited by Perfect Infinitive Exitus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At least that way blacks have the right and ability to defend themselves, if theyre being shot unjustly

while with police, if blacks shoot to defend themselves from an intruder or an unjust attack, theyre probably shot dead because the cop shoots to kill, if he hears a shot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you assuming people just irresponsibly fire arbitrarily?

There is many cities and states with the gun rights being much freer than in states like new york and these places are basically crime free, probably because everyone has a gun in their home and they don't think about doing anything stupid, when there is potential death at every corner.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Perfect Infinitive Exitus said:

Are you assuming people just irresponsibly fire arbitrarily?

There is many cities and states with the gun rights being much freer than in states like new york and these places are basically crime free, probably because everyone has a gun in their home and they don't think about doing anything stupid, when there is potential death at every corner.

 

lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Perfect Infinitive Exitus said:

I think the reason america and individual cities like hong kong became such big economic superpowers in the first place, is abolishing regulation and services, except for those, that allow people to work and work freely.

Hong Kong did not become an economic power solely because of abolishing regulation and services. If anything, Hong Kong's economy benefited massively from trade regulation. And if you have been to Hong Kong or practically any major city in the world, practically all of them have public services paid for or subsidized with taxes.

In the past, Hong Kong was the primary, if not sole, point of access to the Chinese market. Practically everything used to go through Hong Kong until recently due to China closing themselves off to most of the world. Hong Kong also got universal health care and a pretty good public transportation system. Our MTA trains look like shit in comparison. They also got the usual police, fire department, free primary education, etc. like everywhere else.

As for America, we became a massive economic superpower because of government intervention. Our government pumped a huge amount of money into the economy during WWII, and the war wreaking havoc across all of the major industrialized nations except for America at the time artificially gave us a massive economic edge. We have also continued to give massive subsidies to airlines, agriculture, coal, and other industries today. The federal government also redistributes and transfer wealth from rich blue states to poor red states, and I do not see any conservatives complain about "socialism" when it benefits them. If most red states grew a pair of balls and a spine, manned up, and took responsibility for themselves, the federal government would not have to babysit them and have blue states feed them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if red states had higher taxes, then they would probably be less federally dependant and if public services would be almost completely abolished, there would be even less dependance on the blue states.

Problem with that is red states are often lacking the infrastructure that blue states possess, which leads to no corporations being stationed there, maybe once people like elon musk move out of cali into a red state the infrastructure would expand and in todays political climate and technological expansion process, this might actually happen.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...