2020 U.S. Presidential Election - Took place November 3, 2020. Former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden assumed office January 20, 2021.

[Tanner Glass]

But they don't have that with Biden? Could've just had Harris win the primary.

Even if they rigged it and had Harris win - they'd be scrambling to replace her now anyhow.

If your platform suddenly turns into "we need justice reform" you can't have one of the most savage prosecutors as the face of your movement. Harris would try to hide evidence, push for insane sentences, and try and keep people in jail after their time was served. She's the worst candidate you could run in this election considering how hard the democrats are pushing the peaceful protests that have killed like 40+ people.

It would be like the GOP running on a platform of "we need better relations with Vietnam" and then running John McCain's corpse as a candidate.

 

[stupidpieceofshit]

Even if they rigged it and had Harris win - they'd be scrambling to replace her now anyhow.

If your platform suddenly turns into "we need justice reform" you can't have one of the most savage prosecutors as the face of your movement. Harris would try to hide evidence, push for insane sentences, and try and keep people in jail after their time was served. She's the worst candidate you could run in this election considering how hard the democrats are pushing the peaceful protests that have killed like 40+ people.

It would be like the GOP running on a platform of "we need better relations with Vietnam" and then running John McCain's corpse as a candidate.

The DNC ran the worst possible candidate they could last election too. Clinton had no real support from her base (unlike Bernie and Trump) how much ill will the Clintons have from not just the GOP, but moderates, and Dems too. They faced low energy and a history of bitterness HRC off some one who had a ton of vocal support, media be damned.

 

[Tanner Glass]

The DNC ran the worst possible candidate they could last election too. Clinton had no real support from her base (unlike Bernie and Trump) how much ill will the Clintons have from not just the GOP, but moderates, and Dems too. They faced low energy and a history of bitterness HRC off some one who had a ton of vocal support, media be damned.

Hillary Clinton at least had support from tons of super wealthy and powerful people - who all were willing to suck her cock on their various platforms (TV, Social Media, Papers, etc) and could try and prop her up as a "real candidate". She primarily only lost because she decided to not listen to Bill Clinton (a guy who won the presidency, a feat only done 45 times a small amount of times, less than 100 in american history and one of 4 alive in the entire world at the time) in terms of campaign strategy and instead also ran the worst campaign ever run.

Clinton was powerful and connected and the mega rich were ready (and had already paid, in many cases) for the "pay for play" they were going to try and get in the next 4-8 years.

Kamala Harris has none of that. She doesn't have anything resembling that backing, she doesn't have any high level credentials, whatever jobs she had she did poorly and she only got them from banging some skeleton that was 20+ years older than her at the time. She didn't marry a president; she was a mayor's side piece.

Twitter, CNN, Facebook, Amazon, ect will not be dumping billions into a Kamala Harris campaign or donating tens of millions under the table to the "Kamala Harris Foundation".

 

[he who has thus come/gone]

Clinton had no real support from her base (unlike Bernie and Trump) how much ill will the Clintons have from not just the GOP, but moderates, and Dems too. They faced low energy and a history of bitterness HRC off some one who had a ton of vocal support, media be damned.

Hillary definitely had some support among her base. Granted, it was mostly rabid women screaming "It's her turn!" but that is enthusiasm, even if it's retarded levels of enthusiasm. Kamala has a slight portion of that, but not anywhere near Clinton levels. There were a lot of people who either seriously were saying "It's time for a woman president" or just signaling virtue by saying it. Either way, despite how much she was hated, there were still plenty of women and cucks who were all-in on the "strong female candidate who don't need no man and who has been treated terribly by sexist old men for decades." In comparison, Kamala really doesn't have even that.

Kamala Harris has none of that. She doesn't have anything resembling that backing, she doesn't have any high level credentials, whatever jobs she had she did poorly and she only got them from banging some skeleton that was 20+ years older than her at the time. She didn't marry a president; she was a mayor's side piece.

I would agree with this. Also, she's a California candidate. People really, really dislike California and the culture they export, so she has that going against her, too. It's a serious argument that a lot of people will be impacted by if Trump says "if you elect Biden, he will be a puppet of Kamala, and she'll then turn the US into California writ large." Not even Californians like her, but people in many other states will see a senile old man with a California VP one step from the nuclear football and think what could happen if she instituted California politics from the White House.

 

[Standardized Profile]

Bill Clinton (a guy who won the presidency, a feat only done 45 times in american history

By my count, which was hasty and could be wrong, it's been done 56 times. Some presidents won the presidency twice. And one of those was non-consecutive, which is why we have 45 presidencies but only 44 presidents. And some presidents never won the presidency; the sitting president died and the VP took over the job.

 

[Meat Target]

I doubt Trump is ignorant of the Constitution; someone in his position will have had everything very clearly explained to him. A more likely reading is that he simply doesn't care, and wants to encourage the American people to care as little as he does through thinly-veiled displays of contempt for the procedures of democracy.

From day one in office, Trump has debased American democracy, and has made it abundantly clear that he has more admiration for autocratic leaders than he does democratically elected ones. That he would seek to undermine the coming election is not surprising in the slightest.

The resurgence of strongman politicians around the globe is not due so much to Russian or Chinese shenanigans as it is the fecklessness of neoliberal leaders the past two decades.

Bill Clinton abandoned th American working class by shipping their jobs off to China and Mexico; Dubya presided over an ill-fated crusade against terror and the worst (at the time) economic downturn since 1929; Obama followed up with a wimpy recovery and continuation of the forever war.

Meanwhile, European leaders sat idle as hordes of "peaceful refugees" turned Paris, Cologne, and London into Baghdad and Mogadishu, because "diversity is our strength".

And then one day, for no reason (other than racism and Russian meddling), people voted for a billionaire reality TV star who said "America First".

 

[-4ZURE-]

Hillary definitely had some support among her base. Granted, it was mostly rabid women screaming "It's her turn!" but that is enthusiasm, even if it's retarded levels of enthusiasm. Kamala has a slight portion of that, but not anywhere near Clinton levels. There were a lot of people who either seriously were saying "It's time for a woman president" or just signaling virtue by saying it. Either way, despite how much she was hated, there were still plenty of women and cucks who were all-in on the "strong female candidate who don't need no man and who has been treated terribly by sexist old men for decades." In comparison, Kamala really doesn't have even that.

I remember the Twitter stans for Kamala going off after she resigned. She had a bunch of radicalized supporters because she was a black woman, so they could push two angles. Her biggest downfall was Tulsi. That women tore apart her entire platform apart when bringing up her past, so many Twitter users quickly took to ranting about how Tulsi is evil and hates blacks as a result.

The resurgence of strongman politicians around the globe is not due so much to Russian or Chinese shenanigans as it is the fecklessness of neoliberal leaders the past two decades.

I would say supporters are equally to blame. Most joined the Trump side due to crazy internet hijinks of 2013 with the rise of modern Tumblr/Twitter feminism, that then lead into BLM and other groups. When Donald ran, we were at a height of political discourse, which carried him greatly, probably even more so than failed politicians. It seemed like a vast majority did not care for politics in 2010, but after having it shoved into their escapism and daily life so that they feel bad for being a part of “the problem,” I think it got many interested.

As for Russia and China, they pretty much crept up after the election. Russia is really only brought up as an escape-goat for Dems. Hillary was trying to stir up conflict during her run, and once she lost it was easy to say Russia did everything instead of seeing that the actions of Dems were the problem. China is an even more modern threat mostly due to how everything is going. Censorship from the left is now getting confused for the doings of China a lot of the time, as the two seem to think the same. It also does not help that China has a stronghold on media, and gives a free pass to promote Liberal stuff as lost money can be made up with China’s more that 50% in purchases. Of course, the biggest reason why China is due to the protests and America’s response, with a bit of Trump’s trade war mixed in. The fact that most American media seems to neglect the crazy stuff going on down there, if not outright censor it, is a big problem. This in affect, fuels Trump’s policy’s of going against them.
These two will likely have more of a place this election as I can see China propelling Trump higher in electability. He wants to go up against a big nation that many are starting to see huge issues with. As for Russia, I am certain it will and is being used to promote that Trump cheated so the left can gain more followers.

I guess in saying all this, I do not believe one thing can be pinned as the main cause. The ideologies of today and issues seem to have been created by long streams of random events, some seemingly minuscule, that trailed off into much grander issues. I think the random radicalization were a big player in the previous election and I am guessing that foreign nations will take a bigger place in this one, along with the two reasons previously mentioned.

 

[Meat Target]

I remember the Twitter stans for Kamala going off after she resigned. She had a bunch of radicalized supporters because she was a black woman, so they could push two angles. Her biggest downfall was Tulsi. That women tore apart her entire platform apart when bringing up her past, so many Twitter users quickly took to ranting about how Tulsi is evil and hates blacks as a result.


I would say supporters are equally to blame. Most joined the Trump side due to crazy internet hijinks of 2013 with the rise of modern Tumblr/Twitter feminism, that then lead into BLM and other groups. When Donald ran, we were at a height of political discourse, which carried him greatly, probably even more so than failed politicians. It seemed like a vast majority did not care for politics in 2010, but after having it shoved into their escapism and daily life so that they feel bad for being a part of “the problem,” I think it got many interested.

As for Russia and China, they pretty much crept up after the election. Russia is really only brought up as an escape-goat for Dems. Hillary was trying to stir up conflict during her run, and once she lost it was easy to say Russia did everything instead of seeing that the actions of Dems were the problem. China is an even more modern threat mostly due to how everything is going. Censorship from the left is now getting confused for the doings of China a lot of the time, as the two seem to think the same. It also does not help that China has a stronghold on media, and gives a free pass to promote Liberal stuff as lost money can be made up with China’s more that 50% in purchases. Of course, the biggest reason why China is due to the protests and America’s response, with a bit of Trump’s trade war mixed in. The fact that most American media seems to neglect the crazy stuff going on down there, if not outright censor it, is a big problem. This in affect, fuels Trump’s policy’s of going against them.
These two will likely have more of a place this election as I can see China propelling Trump higher in electability. He wants to go up against a big nation that many are starting to see huge issues with. As for Russia, I am certain it will and is being used to promote that Trump cheated so the left can gain more followers.

I guess in saying all this, I do not believe one thing can be pinned as the main cause. The ideologies of today and issues seem to have been created by long streams of random events, some seemingly minuscule, that trailed off into much grander issues. I think the random radicalization were a big player in the previous election and I am guessing that foreign nations will take a bigger place in this one, along with the two reasons previously mentioned.

I don't doubt that Russia *did* attempt to interfere in 2016, but it's been blown way the hell out of proportion. Collusion has been thoroughly debunked by the sheer scope and scale of the Mueller investigation. Most of Russia's efforts were shitposting ads and memes on social media. But since It Was Her Turn, the Dems chose to make Putin into an omnicompetent-yet-elusive Emmanuel Goldstein rather than admit their own hubris.

 

[George Floyd Sneed]

What is with this site and the spectre of the "religous right"? You'd think they kicked your dog and fucked your mom.

I get it they were annoying and it was pearl clutching but fucking let it go man. Farmers talking about the religous right is like jews and the holohoax. 20 years from now posters will still talk about having some pastor trying to take your vidya away like Jews and the oven roller coaster.

The religous right is a gnat compared to the monster of the godless woke left and their army of perpetually aggrieved niggers who always dindu nuffin

It’s horseshoe theory/false dilemma bullshit. The religious right was obnoxious but the wokescolds have taken it several magnitudes greater. There’s as much likelihood of it coming back as the pet rock at this point.

 

[King Daddy Telomerase]

I still fear Kamala. I'm sure the original plan is that she was to be the female Obama back in ~2008, and all it takes is the media fully supporting an attractive black woman to make her the cool option that you must accept or you're a bigot. Most people aren't going to even know she's from San Fran and her actual record in the 3 months it matters.

 

[Hellbound Hellhound]

Okay, right. You gonna tell me he worked with Putin to move around all of Hillary's furniture when she was asleep to freak her out, too?

I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I don't believe Trump conspired with other countries to get elected, and that's not the point I was making. My point was simply that Trump clearly has more affection for autocrats than democratically elected leaders, and his various statements prove it. My other point was that Trump has a devil-may-care attitude towards the protocols and the responsibilities of his office: again, something which is made obvious by the countless things he's said and done since he was elected President.

I don't know why people get so defensive when I bring this stuff up. You don't have to like Hillary or Biden in order to think that Trump is a worrying sign for the future of American democracy; you don't even have to prefer them to Trump. The enemy of your enemy is not necessarily your friend.

The resurgence of strongman politicians around the globe is not due so much to Russian or Chinese shenanigans as it is the fecklessness of neoliberal leaders the past two decades.

I don't disagree with any of this. Trump is a symptom of a problem rather than the problem itself, but the fact remains that his ascendancy represents a sad turn for American politics. A healthy democracy would never have elected Trump.

 

[Harvey Danger]

I sense a narrative being prepared. Curious that someone would pay money to promote this.

link / archive

 

[The Pink Panther]

I sense a narrative being prepared. Curious that someone would pay money to promote this.

View attachment 1486218
link / archive

They're tryna do this because it would be SO, SO GOOD for the press if this happened.

So throwing out the hypothetical is good to comfort people for the amount of overflow of clicks and money if it does happen.

 

[he who has thus come/gone]

I don't disagree with any of this. Trump is a symptom of a problem rather than the problem itself, but the fact remains that his ascendancy represents a sad turn for American politics. A healthy democracy would never have elected Trump.

A healthy democracy wouldn't have elected John Quincy Adams in 1824. The problem with what you're saying is the implication that history should be ignored and that Trump is some sort of novel Hunnic threat to the great Republic that has never been seen before. When you look at a larger context of American history, you realize that the nation has weathered much more serious breaches of democratic norms. Does Trump reflect worrying trends in regards to how Americans view their elected leaders? Sure. But those trends aren't really new, nor are they undeserved. Claiming he's some sort of proto-fascist is just fear-mongering and looking at a narrow scope of history.

 

[Candlelight Desolation]

I've always noticed this, and how incredibly hypocritical it is for this to be the same side saying we need to think of the children when it comes to climate change.

"Think of the children", just like when the gun control debate comes up. Pulled straight from the authoritarian's playbook: you can do anything when it's "for the children".

 

[Hellbound Hellhound]

A healthy democracy wouldn't have elected John Quincy Adams in 1824. The problem with what you're saying is the implication that history should be ignored and that Trump is some sort of novel Hunnic threat to the great Republic that has never been seen before. When you look at a larger context of American history, you realize that the nation has weathered much more serious breaches of democratic norms. Does Trump reflect worrying trends in regards to how Americans view their elected leaders? Sure. But those trends aren't really new, nor are they undeserved. Claiming he's some sort of proto-fascist is just fear-mongering and looking at a narrow scope of history.

I'm certainly not calling for people to ignore history; on the contrary, I think an understanding of history is very important if you wish to determine the trajectory your society heading on. The crucial question to ask here is how has Donald Trump's presidency affected America's trajectory? Has it had an altogether positive effect, or a negative one? Politically and diplomatically, I think the answer is pretty obvious.

 

[Fanatical Pragmatist]

Let's also note that Zoomers are among the most affected with the ridiculous COVID shutdowns.

Because of politics, a lot of Zoomers missed huge milestones in their lives, such as graduation, prom, and Senior high school/college sports. Hell, a lot of Zoomers are in limbo about what they're even going to do for college in the Fall altogether. We've basically had all of our political leaders tell young people that their lives and happiness don't matter; that the lives of people in their 80's and 90's matter more (and those people were actually able to live their full lives).

Personally, I believe that Zoomers are very much going to be more conservative/less leftist than Millennials are. We've had Milennials and Boomers essentially tell Zoomers to fuck off this year, and I think that's definitely going to "redpill" a significant amount of them. Plus, the idea of counter culture is absolutely a thing; leftist ideology is now a corporate-backed thing if the BLM movement has proven anything. Nobody thinks there's going to be a backlash of that in some form? We're already seeing it.

I think it is ironic that the Millennials have been screeching for so long about how "Boomers ruined the economy! Boomers ruined college! Boomers ruined the housing market!" and finally, finally we have a window of time between February 2020 - Present where the Boomers went full Muzan Kibutsuji on us, failing about with insane lockdowns risking the future of everybody just so they could keep living a little longer; and what did the Millennials do?
They fucking fell in line! They got right in the queue for the slaugherhouse, ready as ever to take a big fat L for the Boomers.

I really want to see how Gen Z is processing this information.

 

[RockPaper]

My point was simply that Trump clearly has more affection for autocrats than democratically elected leaders, and his various statements prove it.

I don't necessarily buy this. I haven't read "The Art of the Deal", and people who have can clue me in to how Trump's negotiating strategy in that book is reflected in how he deals with the leaders of other countries. But I don't think public statements he makes (about, say, what a swell fella Lil' Kim is) reflects what's actually going on in his mind. I don't think he actually admires the DPRK. It's a strategy in negotiating where you butter-up somebody when you want something from them, or you want to make yourself look publicly magnanimous and willing to compromise, so you don't look bad when the relationship goes to shit ("Well, I tried!"). I'm not a "Trump always plays 4D chess" guy, but a lot of times he does.

Trump busts our allies because he can afford to - they're already our allies. Banging the table to Merkel and asking her to pay more for NATO (for example) doesn't mean he dislikes democratically elected leaders.

 

[Fanatical Pragmatist]

I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I don't believe Trump conspired with other countries to get elected, and that's not the point I was making. My point was simply that Trump clearly has more affection for autocrats than democratically elected leaders, and his various statements prove it. My other point was that Trump has a devil-may-care attitude towards the protocols and the responsibilities of his office: again, something which is made obvious by the countless things he's said and done since he was elected President.

That's because he'll blow flattery at people he's trying to get to the negotiating table (i.e. Fat Boy Kim and Chairman Xi).
Additionally, leaders such as Bolsonaro, Orban, Netanyahu and Abe are all democratically elected (at least if Der Furher Merkel counts as democratically elected).

The only real "autocrats" he's straight praised are Putin (oh no! how dare the US and Russia not be enemies!) and Muhammed Bin Salman - and the only reason MBS is getting so much hate is because someone in his government dared go against the Western Holy Protocol of never killing a journo, and maybe possibly because the Neolib/Neocon clique is in bed with the Muslim Brotherhood of whom he's trying to kick out of Saudi Arabia.

I don't disagree with any of this. Trump is a symptom of a problem rather than the problem itself, but the fact remains that his ascendancy represents a sad turn for American politics. A healthy democracy would never have elected Trump.

Trump is a sign of a healthy democracy.
If voters putting the interests of international cliques and global elites in front of their own families and livelihoods is "healthy", then I'm not sure you understand the point of democracy.

I'm certainly not calling for people to ignore history; on the contrary, I think an understanding of history is very important if you wish to determine the trajectory your society heading on. The crucial question to ask here is how has Donald Trump's presidency affected America's trajectory? Has it had an altogether positive effect, or a negative one? Politically and diplomatically, I think the answer is pretty obvious.

I would say its positive.

I mean he/we still have a ways to go with pulling out of the Middle East and hopefully less entanglement with the Eurocrats; but its certainly better than the last 3 presidents.

Trump busts our allies because he can afford to - they're already our allies. Banging the table to Merkel and asking her to pay more for NATO (for example) doesn't mean he dislikes democratically elected leaders.

Yeah, that and they need to make up their minds of whether or not they are our allies, especially Germany/Merkel.
The Krauts want to eat their cake and have it too.
They want to simultaneously run Europe's affairs and "bring [their neighbors] in line" with EU shit; but also want the US to keep Russia at bay for them while not paying their fair share of the "Keep Russia at bay" fund.

 

[spiritofamermaid]

That's because he'll blow flattery at people he's trying to get to the negotiating table (i.e. Fat Boy Kim and Chairman Xi).
Additionally, leaders such as Bolsonaro, Orban, Netanyahu and Abe are all democratically elected (at least if Der Furher Merkel counts as democratically elected).

The only real "autocrats" he's straight praised are Putin (oh no! how dare the US and Russia not be enemies!) and Muhammed Bin Salman - and the only reason MBS is getting so much hate is because someone in his government dared go against the Western Holy Protocol of never killing a journo, and maybe possibly because the Neolib/Neocon clique is in bed with the Muslim Brotherhood of whom he's trying to kick out of Saudi Arabia.


Trump is a sign of a healthy democracy.
If voters putting the interests of international cliques and global elites in front of their own families and livelihoods is "healthy", then I'm not sure you understand the point of democracy.


I would say its positive.

I mean he/we still have a ways to go with pulling out of the Middle East and hopefully less entanglement with the Eurocrats; but its certainly better than the last 3 presidents.


Yeah, that and they need to make up their minds of whether or not they are our allies, especially Germany/Merkel.
The Krauts want to eat their cake and have it too.
They want to simultaneously run Europe's affairs and "bring [their neighbors] in line" with EU shit; but also want the US to keep Russia at bay for them while not paying their fair share of the "Keep Russia at bay" fund.

Plus they [Germany, aka the EU] buy energy (natural gas) from Russia, making it so Russia has in some way control over them. Which is funny considering they all scream about "Russia bad!". Why should the US send our men to defend them, when they willingly sold themselves over because "muh nuclear bad"?