Jump to content
Ansem

General US Politics

Recommended Posts

17 hours ago, Jotari said:

So open question, some food for thought. Imagine you got exclusive information from a CIA agent or something that Trump was unequivocally right. The election was rigged by Biden and Trump is the legitimate winner. Would you make this information public?

Nope.  I'd rather save the country than save American Hitler.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/5/2020 at 4:41 PM, Lewyn said:

Nope.  I'd rather save the country than save American Hitler.  

idk man, if Biden rigged the election that would be Hitler-y.

It's a tough question to answer given that it contradicts who Biden actually is. If Biden is the civics option and he rigged the election, we are truly fucked. Do we take the mini-fascist who tried and failed to rig the election, while allowing his political opponent to fully rig it?

It's a pretty bad decision no matter how you look at it. And that's why I would just tell someone I really don't like and make them file the whistleblower complaint.

Edited by Lord Raven

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

idk man, if Biden rigged the election that would be Hitler-y.

It's a tough question to answer given that it contradicts who Biden actually is. If Biden is the civics option and he rigged the election, we are truly fucked. Do we take the mini-fascist who tried and failed to rig the election, while allowing his political opponent to fully rig it?

It's a pretty bad decision no matter how you look at it. And that's why I would just tell someone I really don't like and make them file the whistleblower complaint.

Yeah it would be bad, but if Biden ever considered such a thing (he likely never would) it would be to remove someone that would destroy the US rather than cement himself in absolute rule.  

Guiliani apparently has Covid, maybe this ends his remaining court appearances?  Meanwhile I'm playing the world's tiniest violin for him.

Another hypothetical to consider is a simple flip.  Trump wins the election, but Biden cries massive fraud and pressures Democratic governors and state legislators to ignore vote and give electoral votes to him.  Dozens of frivolous lawsuits and refusal to concede.  Now how do elected Democrats react, how does the general public react?

Share this post


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

Yeah it would be bad, but if Biden ever considered such a thing (he likely never would) it would be to remove someone that would destroy the US rather than cement himself in absolute rule.  

Guiliani apparently has Covid, maybe this ends his remaining court appearances?  Meanwhile I'm playing the world's tiniest violin for him.

Another hypothetical to consider is a simple flip.  Trump wins the election, but Biden cries massive fraud and pressures Democratic governors and state legislators to ignore vote and give electoral votes to him.  Dozens of frivolous lawsuits and refusal to concede.  Now how do elected Democrats react, how does the general public react?

Honestly in that case, I expect the Biden supporters would react just like the Trump supporters are now and will be in Biden's corner claiming fraud. "Biden's a standup guy, if he says something's wrong then there probably is, not like I'd ever trust Trump, it's very believable he'd do something like this," would be a lot of thought processes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Jotari said:

Honestly in that case, I expect the Biden supporters would react just like the Trump supporters are now and will be in Biden's corner claiming fraud. "Biden's a standup guy, if he says something's wrong then there probably is, not like I'd ever trust Trump, it's very believable he'd do something like this," would be a lot of thought processes.

Yep. Honestly, I would probably be the same -- I had it in my head that Trump would have to rig the election to win. With the benefit of retrospect, that is pretty false; Trump would've had to eliminate COVID to win, and frankly if the vaccine were announced before the election rather than after (think of it like an anti-Comey, in my head) I think Trump might creep up on AZ/GA/WI and make this election far more hotly contested.

But 306-232 is, according to Kelly-Anne Conway, a landslide, so Trump can't fight that.

Share this post


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

With the benefit of retrospect, that is pretty false; Trump would've had to eliminate COVID to win

Not at all. He didn't need to get rid of COVID, he just needed to show he was at least interested in doing a good job of handling it. Trump fans often bemoan how COVID cost Trump his re-election(and Trump critics at least see it as a lone benefit of the pandemic) but that's not quite correct. COVID cost Trump nothing and it was instead Trump's insistence to handle it in the worst way possible that cost Trump. 

People are quick to rally behind a leader during a crisis. All a leader needs to do is to be vaguely competent about it. Merkel was widely seen as crippled and on her last legs last year, but now there's a mass panic she's suddenly the much admired Muti Merkel again. A successful policy isn't even required. Our prime minister did a lot of things wrong and our COVID numbers are not particularly bad but not particularly good either, yet because he handled it seriously he's still immensely appreciated and has his poll numbers go through the roof. Even Boris Johnson had a surge in support despite his policies not working very well, because he's at least trying to enact policies. Only leaders like Duterte or Trump really suffer from the pandemic because they aren't even trying to tackle it, and are instead publicly showcassing that they are burdens that slow down any effort to fight the pandemic. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Etrurian emperor said:

Not at all. He didn't need to get rid of COVID, he just needed to show he was at least interested in doing a good job of handling it. Trump fans often bemoan how COVID cost Trump his re-election(and Trump critics at least see it as a lone benefit of the pandemic) but that's not quite correct. COVID cost Trump nothing and it was instead Trump's insistence to handle it in the worst way possible that cost Trump. 

People are quick to rally behind a leader during a crisis. All a leader needs to do is to be vaguely competent about it. Merkel was widely seen as crippled and on her last legs last year, but now there's a mass panic she's suddenly the much admired Muti Merkel again. A successful policy isn't even required. Our prime minister did a lot of things wrong and our COVID numbers are not particularly bad but not particularly good either, yet because he handled it seriously he's still immensely appreciated and has his poll numbers go through the roof. Even Boris Johnson had a surge in support despite his policies not working very well, because he's at least trying to enact policies. Only leaders like Duterte or Trump really suffer from the pandemic because they aren't even trying to tackle it, and are instead publicly showcassing that they are burdens that slow down any effort to fight the pandemic. 

Duterte put the entire country under (effectively) Marshall law with a strict lock down and offered up the Philippines as a guinea pig for the Russian vaccine. It might not be the admirable way to combat it, but he was openly taking means to fight the virus.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Duterte put the entire country under (effectively) Marshall law with a strict lock down and offered up the Philippines as a guinea pig for the Russian vaccine. It might not be the admirable way to combat it, but he was openly taking means to fight the virus.

I don't know where you get your news from, but Filipinos I know say that isn't what happened at all. What the news is saying and the boots on the ground aren't saying the same thing. And some of the "martial law" enacted is outright meant to be long term political oppression. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, Jotari said:

Duterte put the entire country under (effectively) Marshall law with a strict lock down and offered up the Philippines as a guinea pig for the Russian vaccine. It might not be the admirable way to combat it, but he was openly taking means to fight the virus.

True. I actually meant to write Bolsonaro. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Hylian Air Force said:

I don't know where you get your news from, but Filipinos I know say that isn't what happened at all. What the news is saying and the boots on the ground aren't saying the same thing. And some of the "martial law" enacted is outright meant to be long term political oppression. 

My girlfriend is Filipino, and actually an admirer of Duerete, so I know things aren't as cut and dry as many would try to depict it. But what I say is more or less true, the country was put under quite a strict lock down and accepted a Russian vaccine that had not been cleared for late stage trials. Which are significant efforts to combat the virus.

Edited by Jotari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Lord Raven said:

and frankly if the vaccine were announced before the election rather than after (think of it like an anti-Comey, in my head) I think Trump might creep up on AZ/GA/WI and make this election far more hotly contested.

That upwards arrow of history whose existence one wants to doubt when they see the state of the world, does skirt by on thin margins sometimes, more often than we'd ever want it to when we look carefully.😬

 

16 minutes ago, Hylian Air Force said:

And some of the "martial law" enacted is outright meant to be long term political oppression.

Which I might've heard once is what has happened in Hungary too. Rather than rise up to the occasion, you lock down on your enemies.

Share this post


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

the country was put under quite a strict lock down

If you're part of the Goof Troop like his corpulent Chief of the National Police, you get to break these rules, but yeah, sure. The Anti-Terrorism law has been a case of undeclared martial rule ever since its inception. You will not need nacht und nebel if you can round up people in broad daylight.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So Pfizer offered US up to 600 million doses (enough for 300 million people, almost the entire US population) but Trump refused and just bought 100 million.  So we could have all been vaccinated this month and go to normal, wouldn't that have been nice?  A lot less people would die as well.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Lewyn said:

So Pfizer offered US up to 600 million doses (enough for 300 million people, almost the entire US population) but Trump refused and just bought 100 million.  So we could have all been vaccinated this month and go to normal, wouldn't that have been nice?  A lot less people would die as well.  

What does a classless tenant do when they're about to be evicted? Absolutely trash the place so that the landlord has to clean it up. Guess who the landlord is in this situation?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Hylian Air Force said:

What does a classless tenant do when they're about to be evicted? Absolutely trash the place so that the landlord has to clean it up. Guess who the landlord is in this situation?

If you're referring to Trump being booted out, I thought the headlines said this offer was made back in the summer, before the election, when Trump had a scarily real chance of winning. 

 

 

I'm a little uneasy over Biden's Secretary of Defense pick. Looks like a nice guy, is diversity, has experience, works well with the president-elect, but the whole "extraordinary exception to civilian control of the military" aspect doesn't sit well with me. Too many military juntas have and currently do exist around the world, and US democracy is already being damaged by Agent Orange.😬 Some Democrats expressed hesitation to the also extraordinary pick of Mattis for the Department of Defense, and I hope they keep to this with a nominee by a president of their own. I don't know how often cabinet nominees are rejected, but I'm paranoid about the future of American democracy, so I kinda hoping he gets voted down and Biden can find another diverse, civilian pick whom he can establish rapport with. I get the military is disciplined and loved in this country, but it's partly for the sake of keeping it loved that it is best kept out of political offices, it'll become a lot less loved if some generals arbitrarily take over in 2040. Yes, I'm being a worrywart over precedent.

Edited by Interdimensional Observer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I generally agree with the sentiment that all Trump had to do was look slightly competent in handling the virus — early polling even suggested his approval was going up when he was doing those laughable COVID press briefings — but he’s too dumb and incompetent to even meet the lowest of bars.

And yeah, I think his latest fuck up was just that instead of trying to sabotage the incoming administration. He’s been trying really hard to take credit for that vaccine and now the botched roll-out is entirely on him lmao

Edited by Crysta

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, since the deal was made back in the summer, I don't think skimping on the amount of vaccines was part of the "salted earth" initiative Trump is accused of committing. But then why skimp on vaccines in the first place, is the operative question. They can't cost all that much. Maybe it was just an optimistic projection that the virus would "dry up" in the winter or some other such unrealistic expectation parroted in the white house?

Share this post


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

Yeah, since the deal was made back in the summer, I don't think skimping on the amount of vaccines was part of the "salted earth" initiative Trump is accused of committing. But then why skimp on vaccines in the first place, is the operative question. They can't cost all that much. Maybe it was just an optimistic projection that the virus would "dry up" in the winter or some other such unrealistic expectation parroted in the white house?

Just a really stupid oversight by Trump and co.  I don't think there was any real strategy or real reasoning behind it.  They have multiple vaccine candidates so decided not to go all in.  An egomaniac like Trump definitely wasn't trying to salt the earth back then, he is doing that now however.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/6/2020 at 9:48 PM, Jotari said:

Honestly in that case, I expect the Biden supporters would react just like the Trump supporters are now and will be in Biden's corner claiming fraud. "Biden's a standup guy, if he says something's wrong then there probably is, not like I'd ever trust Trump, it's very believable he'd do something like this," would be a lot of thought processes.

I'd agree that there'd be a not-insignificant amount of this, but one thing we have to look at is the "cult of personality". Trump, and those around him, have built one quite masterfully - that's part of how he's able to maintain people's faith in his persistent accusations of fraud. Trump is for the country, and what's against Trump is against the country. This isn't just a Republican thing - Obama rode his to victory (and it's still helping him sell books, no hate), and Bernie nearly rode his to a nomination in 2016. Biden, though... he's got people who love him, but far more that just "like" or "tolerate" him. If he were to lose, and go off the rails claiming fraud, I see far more Democrats just being disappointed in him, and the party's process of nominating an eventual loser, than rallying to his side. Of course, this is coming from a someone who has never really understood Joe Biden's appeal (outside of an alternative to Trump... and Bloomberg), so I can't pretend that's not painting my views.

5 hours ago, Interdimensional Observer said:

I'm a little uneasy over Biden's Secretary of Defense pick. Looks like a nice guy, is diversity, has experience, works well with the president-elect, but the whole "extraordinary exception to civilian control of the military" aspect doesn't sit well with me. Too many military juntas have and currently do exist around the world, and US democracy is already being damaged by Agent Orange.😬 Some Democrats expressed hesitation to the also extraordinary pick of Mattis for the Department of Defense, and I hope they keep to this with a nominee by a president of their own. I don't know how often cabinet nominees are rejected, but I'm paranoid about the future of American democracy, so I kinda hoping he gets voted down and Biden can find another diverse, civilian pick whom he can establish rapport with. I get the military is disciplined and loved in this country, but it's partly for the sake of keeping it loved that it is best kept out of political offices, it'll become a lot less loved if some generals arbitrarily take over in 2040. Yes, I'm being a worrywart over precedent.

Reading up on it, apparently there's a law requiring the Secretary of Defense to be at least seven years out of the military (General Austin is four)... but it can just be waived by a vote of Congress? How does this make any sense - the Senate has to confirm him anyway, so it's not like this vote means anything. If he doesn't get a waiver, he never would have been confirmed; and, if there's the political will to confirm him, of course there's one for a waiver. I suppose it gives an odd chance for the House to "veto" a nominee, in this rare scenario, but... it seems like, if the restriction can simply be waived, why have it to begin with?

Personally, I'm not especially concerned with Austin taking the position. There are at least two degrees of separation between "active military members take control of government" and "former military member takes a prominent position in government". Heck, Eisenhower was among the most beloved presidents of the last century, and he hardly set us on the path to any sort of junta (he went so far as warning the nation against the military-industrial complex). But this could shape up to being a Biden nominee who has more Republican supporters than Democratic, which... well, this confirmation hearing will be a trip, let's say.

Share this post


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

So Pfizer offered US up to 600 million doses (enough for 300 million people, almost the entire US population) but Trump refused and just bought 100 million.  So we could have all been vaccinated this month and go to normal, wouldn't that have been nice?  A lot less people would die as well.  

It's not like everyone would have taken the vaccine, at least not immediately, what with the anti-vaxxer movement still running strong. And with how rapidly viruses mutate I wouldn't expect a single vaccine to bring everything back to normal within just a month or two's time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/7/2020 at 11:58 AM, Etrurian emperor said:

Not at all. He didn't need to get rid of COVID, he just needed to show he was at least interested in doing a good job of handling it. Trump fans often bemoan how COVID cost Trump his re-election(and Trump critics at least see it as a lone benefit of the pandemic) but that's not quite correct. COVID cost Trump nothing and it was instead Trump's insistence to handle it in the worst way possible that cost Trump. 

People are quick to rally behind a leader during a crisis.

yeah you right

Also trump's "rally around the flag" effect was like a 4% bump that he lost almost instantly after

all he really needed to do was wear a mask like the fucking rest of us...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Shanty Pete's 1st Mate said:

I'd agree that there'd be a not-insignificant amount of this, but one thing we have to look at is the "cult of personality". Trump, and those around him, have built one quite masterfully - that's part of how he's able to maintain people's faith in his persistent accusations of fraud. Trump is for the country, and what's against Trump is against the country. This isn't just a Republican thing - Obama rode his to victory (and it's still helping him sell books, no hate), and Bernie nearly rode his to a nomination in 2016. Biden, though... he's got people who love him, but far more that just "like" or "tolerate" him. If he were to lose, and go off the rails claiming fraud, I see far more Democrats just being disappointed in him, and the party's process of nominating an eventual loser, than rallying to his side. Of course, this is coming from a someone who has never really understood Joe Biden's appeal (outside of an alternative to Trump... and Bloomberg), so I can't pretend that's not painting my views.

Reading up on it, apparently there's a law requiring the Secretary of Defense to be at least seven years out of the military (General Austin is four)... but it can just be waived by a vote of Congress? How does this make any sense - the Senate has to confirm him anyway, so it's not like this vote means anything. If he doesn't get a waiver, he never would have been confirmed; and, if there's the political will to confirm him, of course there's one for a waiver. I suppose it gives an odd chance for the House to "veto" a nominee, in this rare scenario, but... it seems like, if the restriction can simply be waived, why have it to begin with?

Personally, I'm not especially concerned with Austin taking the position. There are at least two degrees of separation between "active military members take control of government" and "former military member takes a prominent position in government". Heck, Eisenhower was among the most beloved presidents of the last century, and he hardly set us on the path to any sort of junta (he went so far as warning the nation against the military-industrial complex). But this could shape up to being a Biden nominee who has more Republican supporters than Democratic, which... well, this confirmation hearing will be a trip, let's say.

True, but people are also meanwhile so virulently against Trump at the same time that there's something of a cult of anti personality that would have people jump at any opportunity to oust him. Multiple people here have stated they basically would even if they had exclusive knowledge knowing he did win the election fair and square

Share this post


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

Multiple people here have stated they basically would even if they had exclusive knowledge knowing he did win the election fair and square

Like who? I scrolled up, the best I can find is raven saying idk.

Share this post


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

Like who? I scrolled up, the best I can find is raven saying idk.

Well these two.

On 12/6/2020 at 6:41 AM, Lewyn said:

Nope.  I'd rather save the country than save American Hitler.  

On 12/5/2020 at 1:05 PM, Hylian Air Force said:

If I felt it served the public good, no. This single act of corrupt and anti-democratic skullduggery would not undo the corruption and skullduggery caused by Donald Trump. It might weaken democracy tacitly if it was covered up, but compared to what Trump was aiming for, it wouldn't be anything noteworthy.

 

And I'd add this to the IDK pile with raven.

On 12/5/2020 at 2:33 PM, Eltosian Kadath said:

I would try to convince the agent to come forward with the evidence. It wouldn't be right to take the credit, or the consequences of that evidence.

 

 

 

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...