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

Status
Not open for further replies.
abacussedout said:
There seems to be a swell of media on Rice the last few days, making her past sound really bipartisan, really highlighting her republican son and their ability to agree to disagree, really pushing the Obama connection, as if the campaign sent out a signal flare to the networks to start giving her a moderate, golden age image.
Click to expand...
Whats weird about the Obama worship regarding the whole 'return to normalcy' mantra (that btw I've had given as a sales pitch to me irl) is how all this racial tension began to get worse under Obama. They really wanted to meme Katrina into a disaster for Bush's leadership but in terms of "criminals getting instant karma'd and then riots turning their home city into a bonfire" as a trend didn't kick off until the media wanted to make it a trend. Under Obama all the racial tensions got worse and worse-- and nobody can sincerely blame TRUMP for the latest destruction.

The other weird part is how it verifiably doesn't work as an electoral strategy. Please prove me wrong here, but the mindset the DNC seems to have is they must frame their candidates as continuing Obama's work or else internal party politics will see them lose out to unironic socialists. Maybe this is true, but when it comes to prime time? Hillary ran saying she's continue things like it was Obama's 3rd term, and was thoroughly rejected. Barack may have had 8 years in the Oval Office but on his watch the Democrats lost countless races on a state and federal level, and the 2018 'blue wave' wasn't actually a wave. 40-odd incumbent Republicans refused to run again and the Democrats won about as many seats off them. This is with Obama actively helping with campaigns btw. I get Bill's been put out to pasture. I get the appeal the various brash New York mayors and governors have taps into the conventional leadership qualities that Trump also possesses-- which is something the Woke scolds are trying to make intolerable. But they really need to stop relying on Obama nostalgia when they try to beat Trump, because Obama categorically failed in a lot of these areas too.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Like
  • Winner
Reactions: Tour of Italy, spiritofamermaid, ThatOneLurker and 6 others
FatalTater said:
No matter what the candidates do in the next few months, can we all try to remember that the electoral college exists so there are fewer meltdowns when the results are read?
Click to expand...

Aye.

Fun fact, though. Soros (and his kids) has been working his ass off the past 4 12 years to subvert and destroy the Electoral College.



1596714187590.png

https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB122930124441705413

archive.vn

EXCLUSIVE: Who’s Bankrolling the National Popular Vote Movement - AMA…

archived 6 Aug 2020 11:42:01 UTC
archive.vn archive.vn

1596714279958.png


Remember: It was her turn. Our votes were never supposed to count for anything.
 
  • Horrifying
  • Like
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Pope Julius IV, JohnDoe, Exterminatus and 14 others
RA-5C Vigilante said:
I got an idea
You know how in TV ads nowadays they have racially ambiguous people who could be hispanic or white? Just get one of those and give them a Spanish last name, BOOM Colored Person VP.
Wait did I say colored person? Did I just have a Biden moment?
Click to expand...

That still expands their potential list by exactly zero, unless they've already resorted to just picking random people off the street. Of course in their case that might actually be an improvement.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Qajinima022, Pope Julius IV, spiritofamermaid and 3 others
Hyrip123876 said:
Whats weird about the Obama worship regarding the whole 'return to normalcy' mantra (that btw I've had given as a sales pitch to me irl) is how all this racial tension began to get worse under Obama. They really wanted to meme Katrina into a disaster for Bush's leadership but in terms of "criminals getting instant karma'd and then riots turning their home city into a bonfire" as a trend didn't kick off until the media wanted to make it a trend. Under Obama all the racial tensions got worse and worse-- and nobody can sincerely blame TRUMP for the latest destruction.

The other weird part is how it verifiably doesn't work as an electoral strategy. Please prove me wrong here, but the mindset the DNC seems to have is they must frame their candidates as continuing Obama's work or else internal party politics will see them lose out to unironic socialists. Maybe this is true, but when it comes to prime time? Hillary ran saying she's continue things like it was Obama's 3rd term, and was thoroughly rejected. Barack may have had 8 years in the Oval Office but on his watch the Democrats lost countless races on a state and federal level, and the 2018 'blue wave' wasn't actually a wave. 40-odd incumbent Republicans refused to run again and the Democrats won about as many seats off them. This is with Obama actively helping with campaigns btw. I get Bill's been put out to pasture. I get the appeal the various brash New York mayors and governors have taps into the conventional leadership qualities that Trump also possesses-- which is something the Woke scolds are trying to make intolerable. But they really need to stop relying on Obama nostalgia when they try to beat Trump, because Obama categorically failed in a lot of these areas too.
Click to expand...
At this point, I believe the democrats are trying to get older people more so than young. Because of how news works, they have the ability to convince older Millenials and Gen X that everything was great under Obama, and I believe many see BLM and these riots as only begging under Trump. Most of the young who use the internet in-exclusively for FaceBook know of the upbringing from atleast 2013 if not prior. They know that giving into Biden will not solve anything and make things worse, but for older gens they want to go back to when the news did not speak of the president everyday. It becomes pretty obvious when most of their strikes against Trump or due to his speech or Twitter and less about anything he did.

Basically, the internet has created a huge information divide. Democrats are just banking on the older less-tech generations between Boomers and Z to attach on because all they know is Democrats good, Trump supporters brainwashed.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
  • Like
Reactions: Tismguide, Qajinima022, spiritofamermaid and 2 others
  • Like
  • Winner
Reactions: Qajinima022, Pope Julius IV, Memento Malum and 12 others
Tour of Italy said:
Okay then, what is at stake? What has Trump done besides make inflammatory public statements and leaned on the EU to increase their defense capacity? Which, by the way, they are doing. He understands the overwhelming strength of the US in defense negotiations and for once is willing to use that. As a result Europe's defense capabilities have increased, to both their benefit and the United States'.
Click to expand...
What has Trump done besides make inflammatory public statements? Precisely that: make inflammatory public statements, give the cold shoulder to important allies, appear to ingratiate himself towards bad actors, and demonstrate a blithe indifference to the principles and protocols which have long guided American diplomacy.

Perhaps you think that this stuff is all just pomp and circumstance; I disagree. I think you underestimate the degree to which a head of state sets the tone for national (and in America's case: international) politics, and it is my conviction that in this regard, Trump's effect has been altogether negative. Having a leader of a major superpower who derides expert opinion, ignores expert advice, and signals to the world that they take a fundamentally unserious view towards the responsibilities of governance and the complexity of international affairs, I think, should give everyone pause.

I don't care about hurt feelings. Trump can insult world leaders and senior diplomats to their faces behind closed doors all he likes, but on the international stage, America should be building bridges with it's allies, not burning them. So Trump has got Europe to spend more on defense? That's great — for Europe, but it won't necessarily blossom into a more fruitful alliance for the United States if it's relationships with it's allies sour, which they undoubtedly already have.

I'm not going to commit myself to the argument you seem to want to assign to me here: that Trump's presidency can only lead to calamity, and the end of the world as we know it. That's not what I believe, and it's not what I've been arguing here. My argument is very simply that I think Trump has set America down a bad path, and I say this with the full confidence that America's political and diplomatic infrastructure is robust enough to weather the current tide. My hope, is that the tides are about to change.
Tour of Italy said:
Is it better for America's allies in Europe that they let their capabilities suffer because no one is calling them out on their NATO obligations? We had 8 years of that under Obama. Explain to me how it's somehow better for America's relevance on the world stage that it's closest ally can't effectively be relied on. I think you have this whole issue backwards.
Click to expand...
It's not, and I've never tried to argue that European countries shouldn't pay for their own defense. If Trump's erratic diplomacy encourages Europe to take a sober look at it's situation and lessen it's dependency on the US, then in my view, that will be a good thing for Europe, but it won't necessarily benefit the US. America has never been dependent upon Europe for defense, whereas it has enjoyed an important trade/diplomatic relationship with Europe. If the latter is compromised, then all parties involved will be worse off.
Tour of Italy said:
This is an argument so stupid that I still did a double-take when I saw your response, even if deep down I knew you were going to go down this route.

I chose tanks as an example to show that military overheads do not tell the full story without considering operational material.

Germany is not just "one European country". They are the European country with the largest defense budget, and yet they only have a double-digit count of combat ready tanks in their armored force. Summing up the armored force of all European militaries you end up with a fighting strength that is outnumbered almost ten to one by the Russian Federation. This is a fucking problem, even in a modern war. Especially when you factor in the fact that by and large European tank crews have never seen combat and are often not getting enough training in the first place. Let's not forget that equipment in inventory means more in a modern war because you can't churn out these complex weapons platforms at the same rate you could the comparatively simple equipment of WWII.

You even the odds on the ground considerably with the addition of American armor, and, like you stated, in a modern war with the contribution of US air power and force multiplication, the disparity becomes immaterial. Without it, I'm skeptical that a ten to one numbers disadvantage is so easily overcome.

I brought up the tank issue because the lack of training and combat experience applies equally to their navies, air force, leadership and logisitical corps.

Even in terms of hard equipment totals, the issue is not limited to tanks. In terms of nuclear submarines, military aircraft, and surface vessels European forces are outnumbered by Russian assets at a similar ratio.

You have not given any reasons justifying the victory of an isolated Europe against Russia other than annual military spending, and you've failed to address current assets, readiness, training, institutional knowledge, and strategic reach.

To clarify, I do actually believe Europe alone would come out on top, if they manage to maintain their internal and external alliances, but you still haven't addressed my argument that they alone would not be able to guarantee the sovereignty of their member states if Russia got aggressive.

And keep in mind that's operating under the assumption that the Europe in general and the EU specifically would manage to stay united once their cohesion is rocked by outside aggression. The alliance may look strong on paper, but the cultural divisions run deep, and you'd likely have a harder time convincing an Italian to intervene on behalf of a Lithuanian than you think. With the US involved then the whole ordeal is more likely to be resolved with overwhelming force and NATO's largest contributor footing the majority of the bill, in terms of money and human lives. Without the US, when it's guaranteed to be a much longer and bloodier conflict, you're a moron if you don't realize how that would cause European cohesion to waver.
Click to expand...
All this pedantry about tanks and planes completely ignores the two most important points I raised to you:
  1. The UK and France have hundreds of nuclear missiles between them, and more than enough to flatten every Russian city. This fact alone renders any suggestion that Russia could take over Europe completely ridiculous.
  2. Russia's economy is heavily dependent upon maintaining good relations with Europe; much more so than Europe's is with Russia. This removes any impetus for Russian belligerence against Europe.
Putin may try to push his luck with the Baltic states in the absence of US hegemony, but he's been trying to do that even with American presence. The cataclysmic scenarios that you've been hinting at however, are completely fanciful.

Even in a ground war where nuclear annihilation is taken off the table, what do you suppose Russia's plan of action would be? Enter a bloody battle against Ukraine, Belarus, and Poland, and then expect whatever troops they've got left to proceed through the meat grinder of NATO forces who would, by this point, be waiting for them at the German border? You seem to forget that it's considerably easier for a nation to defend their borders than it is to invade another country, and the strong economic ties between the major European NATO members would make their military alliances sturdier than I think you realize.

This is all academic of course, because the scenario above is never going to happen, for the reasons I've already given.
Tour of Italy said:
I don't see how you've demonstrated how that alliance is in serious jeopardy. I haven't seen any diplomatic evidence that America's relevance on the world stage is fading other than the downstream impact of it's own internal social and economic struggles. Struggles which, by the way, I think a second term of Trump is vastly better positioned to alleviate than a senile Biden who internally wants to turn the US's resources towards a spiraling self-destructive welfare state and internationally would be barely able to hold a coherent conversation with a foreign head of state.
Click to expand...
The deficit has ballooned under Trump, even correcting for Covid-19, and I have seen no evidence thus far that Biden would direct substantially more resources towards the welfare state than Obama did (who managed to reduce the deficit just about every year he was in office, for the record). Biden's main advantage over Trump is that he has a stronger track record of listening to expert advice and working with his party, which doesn't say much given the state of the DNC, but it does at least reduce the significance of whatever personal failings he may have.

I don't know what makes you think that Trump getting a second term will help to alleviate America's current problems. Domestically, the US is in turmoil, and not just because of the lockdown, while internationally, America's reputation among it's allies is the lowest it's been in living memory. Though I don't believe that all of this can be laid at the feet of Trump's leadership, there is no doubt that Trump has been an essential catalyst for it, and if the domestic fallout of the last election is anything to go by, you should expect a considerable escalation in the current turmoil if Trump wins reelection.

Whether or not Biden has the qualities to successfully lead America out of it's current predicament remains to be seen, but to pretend that America is doing well in the current circumstances is absolutely ludicrous. There is a very good chance Trump could lose in November, and if he does, it will be well deserved, whatever you may think of Biden or the Democrats.
 
  • Dumb
  • Autistic
  • Like
Reactions: Ebonic Tutor, Pope Julius IV, OforOwesome and 17 others
Hellbound Hellhound said:
What has Trump done besides make inflammatory public statements? Precisely that: make inflammatory public statements, give the cold shoulder to important allies, appear to ingratiate himself towards bad actors, and demonstrate a blithe indifference to the principles and protocols which have long guided American diplomacy.

Perhaps you think that this stuff is all just pomp and circumstance; I disagree. I think you underestimate the degree to which a head of state sets the tone for national (and in America's case: international) politics, and it is my conviction that in this regard, Trump's effect has been altogether negative. Having a leader of a major superpower who derides expert opinion, ignores expert advice, and signals to the world that they take a fundamentally unserious view towards the responsibilities of governance and the complexity of international affairs, I think, should give everyone pause.

I don't care about hurt feelings. Trump can insult world leaders and senior diplomats to their faces behind closed doors all he likes, but on the international stage, America should be building bridges with it's allies, not burning them. So Trump has got Europe to spend more on defense? That's great — for Europe, but it won't necessarily blossom into a more fruitful alliance for the United States if it's relationships with it's allies sour, which they undoubtedly already have.

I'm not going to commit myself to the argument you seem to want to assign to me here: that Trump's presidency can only lead to calamity, and the end of the world as we know it. That's not what I believe, and it's not what I've been arguing here. My argument is very simply that I think Trump has set America down a bad path, and I say this with the full confidence that America's political and diplomatic infrastructure is robust enough to weather the current tide. My hope, is that the tides are about to change.

It's not, and I've never tried to argue that European countries shouldn't pay for their own defense. If Trump's erratic diplomacy encourages Europe to take a sober look at it's situation and lessen it's dependency on the US, then in my view, that will be a good thing for Europe, but it won't necessarily benefit the US. America has never been dependent upon Europe for defense, whereas it has enjoyed an important trade/diplomatic relationship with Europe. If the latter is compromised, then all parties involved will be worse off.

All this pedantry about tanks and planes completely ignores the two most important points I raised to you:
  1. The UK and France have hundreds of nuclear missiles between them, and more than enough to flatten every Russian city. This fact alone renders any suggestion that Russia could take over Europe completely ridiculous.
  2. Russia's economy is heavily dependent upon maintaining good relations with Europe; much more so than Europe's is with Russia. This removes any impetus for Russian belligerence against Europe.
Putin may try to push his luck with the Baltic states in the absence of US hegemony, but he's been trying to do that even with American presence. The cataclysmic scenarios that you've been hinting at however, are completely fanciful.

Even in a ground war where nuclear annihilation is taken off the table, what do you suppose Russia's plan of action would be? Enter a bloody battle against Ukraine, Belarus, and Poland, and then expect whatever troops they've got left to proceed through the meat grinder of NATO forces who would, by this point, be waiting for them at the German border? You seem to forget that it's considerably easier for a nation to defend their borders than it is to invade another country, and the strong economic ties between the major European NATO members would make their military alliances sturdier than I think you realize.

This is all academic of course, because the scenario above is never going to happen, for the reasons I've already given.

The deficit has ballooned under Trump, even correcting for Covid-19, and I have seen no evidence thus far that Biden would direct substantially more resources towards the welfare state than Obama did (who managed to reduce the deficit just about every year he was in office, for the record). Biden's main advantage over Trump is that he has a stronger track record of listening to expert advice and working with his party, which doesn't say much given the state of the DNC, but it does at least reduce the significance of whatever personal failings he may have.

I don't know what makes you think that Trump getting a second term will help to alleviate America's current problems. Domestically, the US is in turmoil, and not just because of the lockdown, while internationally, America's reputation among it's allies is the lowest it's been in living memory. Though I don't believe that all of this can be laid at the feet of Trump's leadership, there is no doubt that Trump has been an essential catalyst for it, and if the domestic fallout of the last election is anything to go by, you should expect a considerable escalation in the current turmoil if Trump wins reelection.

Whether or not Biden has the qualities to successfully lead America out of it's current predicament remains to be seen, but to pretend that America is doing well in the current circumstances is absolutely ludicrous. There is a very good chance Trump could lose in November, and if he does, it will be well deserved, whatever you may think of Biden or the Democrats.
Click to expand...
That's all well and good.

But people are voting for Trump because they don't want Communism.
 
  • Like
  • Optimistic
Reactions: spiritofamermaid, rando0675309, FigMePhilthy and 12 others
abacussedout said:
There seems to be a swell of media on Rice the last few days, making her past sound really bipartisan, really highlighting her republican son and their ability to agree to disagree, really pushing the Obama connection, as if the campaign sent out a signal flare to the networks to start giving her a moderate, golden age image.
Click to expand...
I've also noticed that but it could just be that we're either at Kamala or Rice now. I can't buy Bass as an option, she would turn Florida from tossup to likely R overnight.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: spiritofamermaid, UselessIdiot, Iwasamwillbe and 4 others
darkwingosonichugorl said:
I've also noticed that but it could just be that we're either at Kamala or Rice now. I can't buy Bass as an option, she would turn Florida from tossup to likely R overnight.
Click to expand...

Part of me thinks that the delay in the VP pick and teasing the notion of Susan Rice is to cover for the unexpected Politico leak. He's likely to go with Kamala Harris anyway, but if he does actually go with someone other than Kamala, Susan Rice is the only realistic choice at this point
 
  • Agree
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Memento Malum, spiritofamermaid, ConfederateIrishman and 4 others
Hellbound Hellhound said:
Reagan was forceful with the Soviet Union, and I would say that worked fairly well. Having an unwillingness to compromise with your ideological enemies can be a noble quality, and it is in no way disputable that China, Russia, and North Korea in their current form are all enemies of the United States. To pretend otherwise is delusional.
Click to expand...
Being more diplomatic with someone isn't the same as "compromising" with them, and the fact that you're deliberately conflating the two as if you're some neocon chickenhawk is telling in and of itself.

Hellbound Hellhound said:
What has Trump done besides make inflammatory public statements? Precisely that: make inflammatory public statements, give the cold shoulder to important allies, appear to ingratiate himself towards bad actors, and demonstrate a blithe indifference to the principles and protocols which have long guided American diplomacy.
Click to expand...
Holy shit shut the fuck up.

This sounds practically indistinguishable from some autistic neocon screed about how we should bomb Iran to "save democracy".

Europe hasn't been an "important ally" beyond trade (which they get protections in at our expense) since World War II. It doesn't matter if the shoulder Trump gives them is absolute zero temperature, as Europe as a whole is not going anywhere far enough to risk America dropping out from protecting it with its military might.

Who is Trump "ingratiating" himself to? How is he "ingratiating" himself to them? He gave a few compliments? He tried to speak sweet nothings into their ear to make a diplomatic meeting go along more smoothly? Would you rather he try to shout down Putin, Jinping, and Kim every time they meet?

What the fuck is this bullshit about a "blithe indifference to the principles and protocols which have long guided American diplomacy"? What are these historic and immutable "principles and protocols", that Trump is so carelessly defying? Why are they apparently so eternally important that Trump is not at liberty to change them at any time?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
  • Agree
  • DRINK!
Reactions: Pope Julius IV, Honest Coyote, jje100010001 and 14 others
Hypnopedosnake2 said:


He can still win guys...i know he will. (:_(
Click to expand...
Dude, the movement fell apart the second you flaked and became apart of the establishment. If you want people to believe your message, you should have fought instead of going down with the biggest whimper I have ever seen. There is no way that Obama or Joe Biden are going to do anything you want, yet you let them walk all over you just like you let Clinton.

What do progressives have now Bernie? What?
Tulsi bailed. She was one of your strongest backers, placing her entire career on the line for you, yet even she fell in line for Biden. Yang was cool until CNN blue pulled him into getting in line as well. What? AOC? That woman is a career politician who ditched you and your movement the second you bailed so that she could remain in the “cool kids club” with Nancy. Now she has every young Democrat that she was supposed to bring up rightfully trying to tear her down for backstabbing.

People actually wanted you to succeed and take over the party, but you did not do that. Everyone knew the Dems would destroy your campaign, yet they stuck with you anyway because they hoped you would have at least some fight in you. Then what happened, you were on top of the world, yet you let Obama talk you out of running. Just give it up now. Your supporters are guaranteed Trump fodder and there is nothing you can do now to make Joe even remotely seem like he cares about actual change.

This change movement lives on, sadly you decided to choose the wrong side.
 
Last edited:
  • Winner
  • Like
  • Semper Fidelis
Reactions: Ira the Weatherman, Honest Coyote, Exterminatus and 16 others
Iwasamwillbe said:
Being more diplomatic with someone isn't the same as "compromising" with them, and the fact that you're deliberately conflating the two as if you're some neocon chickenhawk is telling in and of itself.


Holy shit shut the fuck up.

This sounds practically indistinguishable from some autistic neocon screed about how we should bomb Iran to "save democracy".

Europe hasn't been an "important ally" beyond trade (which they get protections in at our expense) since World War II. It doesn't matter if the shoulder Trump gives them is absolute zero temperature, as Europe is not going anywhere far enough to risk America dropping out from protecting them with its military might as a whole.

Who is Trump "ingratiating" himself to? How is he "ingratiating" himself to them? He gave a few compliments? He tried to speak sweet nothings into their ear to make a diplomatic meeting go along more smoothly? Would you rather he try to shout down Putin, Jinping, and Kim every time they meet?

What the fuck is this bullshit about a "blithe indifference to the principles and protocols which have long guided American diplomacy"? What are these historic and immutable "principles and protocols", that Trump is so carelessly defying? Why are they apparently so eternally important that Trump is not at liberty to change them at any time?
Click to expand...
Expressing concern about the global health of democratic systems, the strength of democratic allegiances, and the state of democratic leadership in an age of rising autocracy worldwide doesn't automatically make someone some kind of crazed neocon. I don't expect much from a political leader: only that they're competent, and committed to democratic principles. I am yet to be convinced that Trump is either of those.

If you want answers to your questions, I would suggest that you reread my previous post. I don't feel like going to the trouble of digging up quotes only for you to dismiss them as meaning something entirely different. Let's just say that we have a fundamental difference of opinion, and that only history can judge one of us right.
 
  • Dumb
  • Disagree
  • Like
Reactions: Pope Julius IV, Return of the Freaker, Milkis and 3 others
Hellbound Hellhound said:
Expressing concern about the global health of democratic systems, the strength of democratic allegiances, and the state of democratic leadership in an age of rising autocracy worldwide doesn't automatically make someone some kind of crazed neocon. I don't expect much from a political leader: only that they're competent, and committed to democratic principles. I am yet to be convinced that Trump is either of those.

If you want answers to your questions, I would suggest that you reread my previous post. I don't feel like going to the trouble of digging up quotes only for you to dismiss them as meaning something entirely different. Let's just say that we have a fundamental difference of opinion, and that only history can judge one of us right.
Click to expand...
>muh history will be the judge

Holy shit just shut the fuck up. What is it with you pseudo-intellectual autists who constantly use five-dollar words and formal language to sound smart, and thinking that History is this pantheistic deity who's sole job is to decide which political ideologies and worldviews are "correct", instead of merely being a (recorded) collection of events that influence the course of other events?
 
  • Feels
  • Like
  • Mad at the Internet
Reactions: Ira the Weatherman, Pope Julius IV, JohnDoe and 32 others
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back