Donald Trump Presidency discussion Thread VIII (threadbanned users listed in OP)

Gbear

listermint wrote: »

Trump isnt winning this time, ive said it before i said it earlier this year, i said it last year.

He has LOST the middle wavering voter. There is no evidence of these voters coming back to him. They want normal back. Biden is that.

Sorry that you will lose the entertainment of the crazy train but, it is what it is.

He's lost it for the moment, but there are a few things to be said.


1. November is still quite a while away. It's difficult to tell what exactly the situation will be with respect to the economy and the virus in the intervening months.



2. Trump attempted to cheat in the last election, when he didn't have the leverage over the federal government he does now and a servile DoJ. Would any of the below surprise you?


- Destroyed ballots.
- Attacks on voting machines (given that they were already compromised in the last election, this seems all but certain).
- Voter intimidation and soliciting and enabling attacks on voting stations by right-wing militias.
- Using the Supreme Court to stop counting legitimate mail in ballots.


If there's no spanner in the works thrown, it's highly probably that Biden will win. He's certainly, without any doubt, massively more supported than Trump, including in numerous swing states. But even a normal election would be subject to surprise results under the circumstances, never mind when there's a fascist already in place.

fr336

Mod Snip

No link dumps please

Water John

This guy;
https://www.foxnews.com/person/m/stephen-l-miller

I know I posted a piece by an Iowa writer Art Cullen on his own state and he would have Dem leaning. But he's also a Pulitzer prize winner.

This Miller guy is just seems a mouthpiece for his WH namesake.

Rjd2

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

He's a very unbiased writer. Not.

He's said he won't vote Trump numerous times on twitter tbf for last few years.

Is their such a thing as unbiased mainstream journo in America atm anyhow?

extra gravy

https://twitter.com/ProjectLincoln/status/1299719305806991362?s=19

Slurring his words and now nearly falling over. He looks to be rapidly declining.

Gbear

https://spectator.us/2016-all-over-again/amp/?__twitter_impression=true

The problem with their assessment is that it's totally untethered from the actual discourse in the platform and progressive media in the states.



I don't think I've seen any hint of complacency or of thinking that the job's done from anyone with any skin in the game.

Roughly 40 percent of the country, we can assume, has simply tuned out the media.

No. Roughly 40% of the electorate, not the country, get all their news from Facebook and Fox News.

But what we learned is a silent majority of voters are tired of the leftist base destroying their livelihoods, blocking highways and roadways from getting home to their families and the failed mantra of ‘Hope and Change’. Those voters are also sick of a media they see as complicit in glorifying riots that burn down their businesses in the name of something called racial justice. That silent majority exacts its revenge on Election Day.

This is just drivel. There's no silent majority. Like even when he won, he lost by millions of ****ing votes. Is the author a complete illiterate?


His leftist base? Again, utter ****ing nonsense. It's the same drivel peddled online that Joe Biden of all people is some sort of secret Marxist and his flying columns of Tankies are coming to take your guns.


I'm not going to pretend that there aren't people that don't believe this insane conspiratorial garbage, but it's certainly not his base, who are comprised of middle class professionals, suburban woman, and black people as a whole.


Utter drivel, but then again, it's the Spectator.


The whole thing just reads like someone who isn't quite sure whether it would be seen as gauche to come out and support Trump so they present the argument that he's going to win as being all the fault of the leftists, and not the fascism native the American political system, that they don't actually have any issue with.

Edit:

I think it's worth discussing this piece, even if the OP was just a link thrown down.

There's going to be quite a lot of fodder like this written over the next few months, from embarrassed conservatives who are perfectly happy with the way the world is, but Trump is a bit too new money and rough around the edges to openly support, so token efforts will be made of deflecting blame and trying to fruitlessly prove that their world view is qualitatively different from where the modern Republican party is.

Professor Moriarty

Rjd2 wrote: »

He's said he won't vote Trump numerous times on twitter tbf for last few years.

Is their such a thing as unbiased mainstream journo in America atm anyhow?

Indeed America is very polarised at the moment. But there are gradations of bias. Based on a quick perusal of a few of Miller's articles, I would consider him to be quite right wing.

fr336

Didnt he lose the popular vote only because you can rack up votes in certain very democratic or republican states instead of all the states as a whole? I always find the scrap the electoral college thing bizarre - wouldnt that mean the presidency could be won by a simple majority of the country? You could have a huge population in certain states who vote overwhelmingly for one party. Not very representative.

namloc1980

The grift goes on. Jared Kushner brokered a deal to import ventilators from Russia back in March but it turned out that the ventilators were faulty and unusable. Even more bizarrely he used a personal relationship with the CEO of a Russian sovereign wealth fund to hurry along the deal - that Russian fund is under US sanctions.

https://www.businessinsider.com/kushner-sourced-covid-ventilators-from-russia-that-didnt-work-report-2020-8?r=US&IR=T

namloc1980

fr336 wrote: »

Didnt he lose the popular vote only because you can rack up votes in certain very democratic or republican states instead of all the states as a whole? I always find the scrap the electoral college thing bizarre - wouldnt that mean the presidency could be won by a simple majority of the country? You could have a huge population in certain states who vote overwhelmingly for one party. Not very representative.

A majority of voters is not representative? If a candidate wins a state by 51-49% they win 100% of the electoral college for that state. How is that representative?

fr336

namloc1980 wrote: »

A majority of voters is not representative?

Not when you have a country the size and as diverse as the USA. If you go by mere numbers then states like new york, texas, california or florida could essentially decide who is president. The other states may as well not show up. It is interesting people dont take issue with systems till theyre on the losing side. The dems won in 08 and 12 with ease both popular vote and EC.

namloc1980

fr336 wrote: »

Not when you have a country the size and as diverse as the USA. If you go by mere numbers then states like new york, texas, california or florida could essentially decide who is president. The other states may as well not show up. It is interesting people dont take issue with systems till theyre on the losing side.

Mere numbers? Those are the actual voters. Again if a candidate wins a state by 51-49% they win 100% of the electoral college for that state. How is that representative? The 49% have no representation. Republican candidate has only won the popular vote once in the last 7 elections.

Professor Moriarty

namloc1980 wrote: »

Mere numbers? Those are the actual voters. Again if a candidate wins a state by 51-49% they win 100% of the electoral college for that state. How is that representative? The 49% have no representation.

75% of American voters have no say whatsoever in who gets elected as president.

SixtaWalthers

In last days of his presidency, Trump wants masterstroke. I am curious to know it would be anything about China or something about Arab-Israel deal. Let's see how Trump play his last cards.

Professor Moriarty

SixtaWalthers wrote: »

In last days of his presidency, Trump wants masterstroke. I am curious to know it would be anything about China or something about Arab-Israel deal. Let's see how Trump play his last cards.

China won't help Trump. If anything, they'll do everything they can to help bring him down.

namloc1980

SixtaWalthers wrote: »

In last days of his presidency, Trump wants masterstroke. I am curious to know it would be anything about China or something about Arab-Israel deal. Let's see how Trump play his last cards.

He'll announce a vaccine in October whether there's one actually ready or not.

salmocab

namloc1980 wrote: »

Mere numbers? Those are the actual voters. Again if a candidate wins a state by 51-49% they win 100% of the electoral college for that state. How is that representative? The 49% have no representation. Republican candidate has only won the popular vote once in the last 7 elections.

In fact if your say a Republican in California you may as well stay in bed on Election Day you’ve basically no vote. It’s the most ridiculous setup, people’s votes are worth more or less based on where they live.

StringerBell

fr336 wrote: »

Not when you have a country the size and as diverse as the USA. If you go by mere numbers then states like new york, texas, california or florida could essentially decide who is president. The other states may as well not show up. It is interesting people dont take issue with systems till theyre on the losing side. The dems won in 08 and 12 with ease both popular vote and EC.

People have had issues with the electoral college and it's outdated nature for years. Years and years.

TomOnBoard

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

75% of American voters have no say whatsoever in who gets elected as president.

That one certainly needs an explanation, Prof. ..

Water John

There are only 6/9 swing states. Over 40 states are already decided, as such. Only 2 states award the Electoral College in proportion to the vote. All the rest give all the College Electoral votes to the winner in that state.

AbusesToilets

Water John wrote: »

There are only 6/9 swing states. Over 40 states are already decided, as such. Only 2 states award the Electoral College in proportion to the vote. All the rest give all the College Electoral votes to the winner in that state.

Having the EC votes accorded proportionally by state would be a very effective manner to improve the competitiveness of the contest

kowloon

fr336 wrote: »

Didnt he lose the popular vote only because you can rack up votes in certain very democratic or republican states instead of all the states as a whole? I always find the scrap the electoral college thing bizarre - wouldnt that mean the presidency could be won by a simple majority of the country? You could have a huge population in certain states who vote overwhelmingly for one party. Not very representative.

The other way around, you can win the entirety of the electoral college votes without having the same proportion of the popular vote.

SixtaWalthers

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

China won't help Trump. If anything, they'll do everything they can to help bring him down.

I mean to say Trump will use anti-China campaign to attract his voters.

Paul_Hacket

The thing about this election is that it comes down to which section of the electorate turns out in greater numbers. I'm not talking about Republicans versus Democrats. Liberals versus conservatives or whatever. I'm talking about people who vote based on evidence and reason and those who vote because of the various prejudices they harbor.

I live in the US and have done for a long time, there is a sizable sector of the electorate here who will vote for Trump simply to "own the libs". They couldn't care LESS about what Trump has or has not achieved in office, what he's said (no matter how ignorant and stupid), what he's done (p@ssy grabbing or otherwise).

They don't care about him furthering their own interests. Numerically, most of these people are failed whites who have massive chips on their shoulders about the fact that they've failed in life in various ways and they just want someone who will make the liberal elites miserable - and that's exactly what Trump does. The fact that he is a blatant racist doesn't hurt either as far as a lot of em go. Remember, he came to prominence on the political scene by being the main propigator of the idea that Obama wasn't born in the US.

The poster above who says the Democrats are making a mistake by going on endlessly about culture war issues has a fair point. The country is a mess economically and was long before Covid 19 hit. Therefore the dems need to make this about the economy and real world issues that affect everyone, like health care. Yeah, I know Trump has boasted endlessly about this being the greatest economy ever. Really? If that's so how come literally 50% of the US population have less than $500 in saving and are one paycheck away from bankruptcy. That's not a booming economy - that's a serf economy where most people, even the vanishing middle class are simply failing.

The Dems need to win the middle class. They need to win the suburbs. They need to win those in the working class who are still willing to make political decisions based on their interests rather than the red meat nonsense Trump throws at them endlessly on Twitter. If the Dems focus on the economy, if they can explain how they're going to reform healthcare in detail and if they can talk about building up infrastructure, education, etc. they will win. If they turn this into an election based on whether you prefer Black Lives Matter or Blue Lives Matter, they could well lose.

If they do I am shutting my business down and getting out of here. Because it frigging sucks here right now.

Water John

Very good and interesting post Paul.

Professor Moriarty

TomOnBoard wrote: »

That one certainly needs an explanation, Prof. ..

There are considered to be 12 swing states out of 50 presently according to FiveThirtyEight. Some commentators might change that number up or down a little but not by much. These are states where the contest is close. The other states are essentially predictable. For instance, states such as California, New York, Illinois and many others have voted for a Democrat candidate in the last 7 elections. Similarly, states such as Alabama, South Carolina, Oklahoma, and many others have voted for a Republican candidate in the last 7 elections. So, in these states, your vote almost certainly won't be decisive. However, in swing states, every vote counts. It's like the FPTP system in the UK. If, for instance, you are living in a very safe Tory constituency, it's essentially pointless to vote Labour - though of course you should.

alchemist33

Paul_Hacket wrote: »

The thing about this election is that it comes down to which section of the electorate turns out in greater numbers. I'm not talking about Republicans versus Democrats. Liberals versus conservatives or whatever. I'm talking about people who vote based on evidence and reason and those who vote because of the various prejudices they harbor.

I live in the US and have done for a long time, there is a sizable sector of the electorate here who will vote for Trump simply to "own the libs". They couldn't care LESS about what Trump has or has not achieved in office, what he's said (no matter how ignorant and stupid), what he's done (p@ssy grabbing or otherwise).

They don't care about him furthering their own interests. Numerically, most of these people are failed whites who have massive chips on their shoulders about the fact that they've failed in life in various ways and they just want someone who will make the liberal elites miserable - and that's exactly what Trump does. The fact that he is a blatant racist doesn't hurt either as far as a lot of em go. Remember, he came to prominence on the political scene by being the main propigator of the idea that Obama wasn't born in the US.

The poster above who says the Democrats are making a mistake by going on endlessly about culture war issues has a fair point. The country is a mess economically and was long before Covid 19 hit. Therefore the dems need to make this about the economy and real world issues that affect everyone, like health care. Yeah, I know Trump has boasted endlessly about this being the greatest economy ever. Really? If that's so how come literally 50% of the US population have less than $500 in saving and are one paycheck away from bankruptcy. That's not a booming economy - that's a serf economy where most people, even the vanishing middle class are simply failing.

The Dems need to win the middle class. They need to win the suburbs. They need to win those in the working class who are still willing to make political decisions based on their interests rather than the red meat nonsense Trump throws at them endlessly on Twitter. If the Dems focus on the economy, if they can explain how they're going to reform healthcare in detail and if they can talk about building up infrastructure, education, etc. they will win. If they turn this into an election based on whether you prefer Black Lives Matter or Blue Lives Matter, they could well lose.

If they do I am shutting my business down and getting out of here. Because it frigging sucks here right now.

Genuinely curious - how is all this affecting your day to day life over there?

AbusesToilets

Paul_Hacket wrote: »

The thing about this election is that it comes down to which section of the electorate turns out in greater numbers. I'm not talking about Republicans versus Democrats. Liberals versus conservatives or whatever. I'm talking about people who vote based on evidence and reason and those who vote because of the various prejudices they harbor.

I live in the US and have done for a long time, there is a sizable sector of the electorate here who will vote for Trump simply to "own the libs". They couldn't care LESS about what Trump has or has not achieved in office, what he's said (no matter how ignorant and stupid), what he's done (p@ssy grabbing or otherwise).

They don't care about him furthering their own interests. Numerically, most of these people are failed whites who have massive chips on their shoulders about the fact that they've failed in life in various ways and they just want someone who will make the liberal elites miserable - and that's exactly what Trump does. The fact that he is a blatant racist doesn't hurt either as far as a lot of em go. Remember, he came to prominence on the political scene by being the main propigator of the idea that Obama wasn't born in the US.

The poster above who says the Democrats are making a mistake by going on endlessly about culture war issues has a fair point. The country is a mess economically and was long before Covid 19 hit. Therefore the dems need to make this about the economy and real world issues that affect everyone, like health care. Yeah, I know Trump has boasted endlessly about this being the greatest economy ever. Really? If that's so how come literally 50% of the US population have less than $500 in saving and are one paycheck away from bankruptcy. That's not a booming economy - that's a serf economy where most people, even the vanishing middle class are simply failing.

The Dems need to win the middle class. They need to win the suburbs. They need to win those in the working class who are still willing to make political decisions based on their interests rather than the red meat nonsense Trump throws at them endlessly on Twitter. If the Dems focus on the economy, if they can explain how they're going to reform healthcare in detail and if they can talk about building up infrastructure, education, etc. they will win. If they turn this into an election based on whether you prefer Black Lives Matter or Blue Lives Matter, they could well lose.

If they do I am shutting my business down and getting out of here. Because it frigging sucks here right now.

Both parties have sold out the Middle Class for decades in the name of globalised profits. The Dems in particular are lucky that the Republicans have refused to adopt any policies of substance for the last few decades. The black community and rust belt have been fed lies and ignored, expected to row in behind the party of the working man schtick that the Dems through out. You saw some of that in 2016

Water John

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Trump is a nutjob.

I will leave it at that.

I doubt he really wants another term TBH.

Oh yes he does. To stroke his ego and to ensure he doesn't end up in jail.

Igotadose

StringerBell wrote: »

People have had issues with the electoral college and it's outdated nature for years. Years and years.

This is a great discussion to have and has shown up here a number of times.

I'm currently reading "Slavery by Another Name" by Douglas Blackmon where he recounts the history of the post-Reconstruction South, focusing on Alabama. It became practice to jail African Americans on the flimsiest of charges (vagrancy, speaking loudly, riding the rails), quickly convict and fine, then as the African-Americans couldn't pay, sell them under 'contract' to white farmers/mine owners/lumber mill operators. The Southern economy boomed with this system, the African Americans were kept as slaves in all but name, regularly whipped or abused, starved, not given clothing, etc. Eventually (early 1900's) Booker T. Washington met with President Teddy Roosevelt, explained the situation in some depth - there were plenty of rumors about it and some efforts to mitigate, but the Southern governments were profiting way too much from the system to do anything but encourage it.

I bring it up because at the root of the problem is Electoral politics. Until a President came along that needed electoral votes (TR), nothing happened. The electoral college has been called a relic of Jim Crow, it's actually older than that. I think the best answer is, majority wins the Presidency and the electoral college disbands. If a state wants more influence on the Presidency, encourage growth of population.