Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

US Presidential Election 2020

Options
1…231232234236237…306

Comments

  • Options
    #6992
    Gbear
    Registered Users Posts: 12,775 ✭✭✭✭Gbear


    Trump not having coronavirus isn't a conspiracy theory. At least not in the way the term is usually used.

    They tend to not be falsifiable (there's always an excuse as to why things don't turn out to be true - note Q anon's lack of accurate predictions).
    Trump having COVID would be proven if he has a serious case and is hospitalized or dies.

    They also tend to be more than a single lie. They're a network of lies that require a fanciful degree of coordination among not just people directly effected, but an absurdly large pool of people. See a conspiracy theory like climate change being a hoax - it would require probably millions of scientists; virtually all of them in the climatology field, cooperating to lie about it.
    Here it's just Trump's inner circle.

    We have priors for Trump lying about literally anything, including things that are easily disproven like the size of his inauguration crowd. It's absurd to think that he's beyond lying about it.

    We've also seen another fascist lie about coronavirus, or almost certainly lie, because Bolsonaro has claimed to have got it twice.

    There is also an obvious motive to do so - dodging debates and trying to undermine attacks on him about COVID.

    On balance, I think he probably is telling the truth, not it's not absurd to think he's making it up, because that's his thing.


  • Options
    #6993
    Phoebas
    Registered Users Posts: 9,370 ✭✭✭Phoebas


    correct horse battery staple wrote: »
    I hope Biden and moderator are being tested, Trump was on that stage spitting and raging like a rabid dog for quite some time.

    Trump gives it to Biden. Biden dies. Trump wins the Presidency.

    PM me to discuss terms for the movie rights.


  • Options
    #6994
    Hurrache
    Registered Users Posts: 10,167 ✭✭✭✭Hurrache


    Phoebas wrote: »
    This could play well for him.

    If he gets through it unscathed then he's the strongman President who personally fought Covid and won.
    If it flattens him then he gets a sympathy vote with lots of opportunities for his opponents to fail to read the country right by attacking a man downed with a terrible illness.

    It's a curve ball that could go anywhere.

    That's how I see it too, although a bit less on the attacking a downed man, I don't think there's much in that as he brought it upon himself and says it's not that bad.
    correct horse battery staple wrote: »
    Trump 2 days ago at the debate



    I hope Biden and moderator are being tested, Trump was on that stage spitting and raging like a rabid dog for quite some time.

    Biden has been getting tests regularly as it is.


  • Options
    #6995
    Inquitus
    Registered Users Posts: 13,734 ✭✭✭✭Inquitus


    Phoebas wrote: »
    Trump gives it to Boden. Boden dies. Trump wins the Presidency.

    PM me to discuss terms for the movie rights.

    In the case of Biden's death the Democrats would pick a new nominee. This article covers the possibility of the death of a candidate quite well.

    https://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/20431


  • Options
    #6996
    Inquitus
    Registered Users Posts: 13,734 ✭✭✭✭Inquitus


    correct horse battery staple wrote: »
    Hmm what happens to the millions of ballots already cast?

    Too late to change the ballot names, vote Trump get Pence or whoever, vote Biden, get Bernie, Harris or whoever.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #6997
    Inquitus
    Registered Users Posts: 13,734 ✭✭✭✭Inquitus


    correct horse battery staple wrote: »
    Hmm in a real democracy that sounds about right, but would the republicans not scream voter fraud, drag whole thing into supreme court where they win the presidency? or am i missing something.

    I think there is little doubt the death of a presidential candidate at this point would cause a shítshow.


  • Options
    #6998
    Quin_Dub
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 15,116 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    Hard to know the reaction to this.

    The Markets dropped overnight on the news , will have to see what happens at the open.

    In terms of Voter reaction , not really sure this has major implications yet.

    If he doesn't experience any major symptoms and is back on the campaign trail in ~2 weeks time , are any voters really going to change their minds on that basis?

    I'm not sure him not really being impacted helps/hinders him that much for now.

    Obviously if he does actually get sick , particularly to the point of hospitalisation then that is a much much bigger deal.

    People could decide not to vote for him because they think he won't be able for the job - And given the sort of things we are now hearing about the long term debilitating effects that Covid is having on people in terms of stamina & energy etc. that wouldn't be an unreasonable reaction.

    Equally though , it could have a rallying effect , but again really hard to know.

    The next few weeks are going to be weird.


  • Options
    #6999
    valoren
    Registered Users Posts: 5,458 ✭✭✭valoren


    I find it very suspicious. His performance in the “debate” was celebrated as a disaster. The headline from it was his failure to condemn white supremacists and a sub headline was that he “misspoke”…again. Either he won’t condemn white supremacy or he can’t provide a coherent and articulate answer in a debate. Needless to say it would benefit Trump to lay low for a while and a deflective story would be welcome to bury the above headlines. I believe Hope Hicks has tested positive for Covid-19 and that the Trump campaign have chosen to leverage this to have Trump lay low. Having Melania on that ticket as well will lend the necessary credibility. He will now have a legitimate sick note to duck, dodge and avoid further debates which he is incapable of performing adequately in. His bullying interruption antics back fired on him during the first and no coherent or relatable messages emerged from his performance.

    Trump is a narcissist and I believe this is him welcoming a chance to play the victim. He will wait to bask in the attention this will give him, make note of which World leaders will come out and express their sympathy and concerns. He will have thrown a curve ball to his political opponents and critics who if they continue to attack and deride his Presidency then they can easily be smeared as uncaring, unpatriotic and downright nasty people for choosing to criticize a floored and recovering President. Let’s just say that the POTUS having a viral infection that has killed over 200,000 Americans is pretty sensitive information. You’d expect the appropriate channels of government to be informed privately before making official announcements and I presume this all happened in the background. It strikes me as particularly odd that this major and critical news was flouted/Twittered publicly so fast and so quickly after the disastrous debate and critical aftermath. It leaves me questioning the veracity of the true diagnosis his doctor has given. There is precedence there with his unscheduled emergency trip to hospital which was just for “routine tests” last year. It’s no stretch to imagine this diagnosis is a false one considering that. I’ll take interest in watching a narcissist leverage this for all the attention and sympathy it will generate in the weeks ahead and I’ll patiently wait for his inevitable and miraculous “recovery”. See? Covid-19, not a big deal! VoteTrump2020 etc. Desperate times call for desperate measures. If the only thing keeping you from getting indicted and charged is your position as POTUS then wouldn't you be willing to drum up anything to protect that position? This is Trump swinging for the fences/throwing a Hail Mary pass. When someone has told over 20k verified lies while in office then, you reap what you sow, and you invite suspicion in lieu of any sympathy.


  • Options
    #7000
    Quin_Dub
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 15,116 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    valoren wrote: »
    I find it very suspicious. His performance in the “debate” was celebrated as a disaster. The headline from it was his failure to condemn white supremacists and a sub headline was that he “misspoke”…again. Either he won’t condemn white supremacy or he can’t provide a coherent and articulate answer in a debate. Needless to say it would benefit Trump to lay low for a while and a deflective story would be welcome to bury the above headlines. I believe Hope Hicks has tested positive for Covid-19 and that the Trump campaign have chosen to leverage this to have Trump lay low. Having Melania on that ticket as well will lend the necessary credibility. He will now have a legitimate sick note to duck, dodge and avoid further debates which he is incapable of performing adequately in. His bullying interruption antics back fired on him during the first and no coherent or relatable messages emerged from his performance.

    Trump is a narcissist and I believe this is him welcoming a chance to play the victim. He will wait to bask in the attention this will give him, make note of which World leaders will come out and express their sympathy and concerns. He will have thrown a curve ball to his political opponents and critics who if they continue to attack and deride his Presidency then they can easily be smeared as uncaring, unpatriotic and downright nasty people for choosing to criticize a floored and recovering President. Let’s just say that the POTUS having a viral infection that has killed over 200,000 Americans is pretty sensitive information. You’d expect the appropriate channels of government to be informed privately before making official announcements and I presume this all happened in the background. It strikes me as particularly odd that this major and critical news was flouted/Twittered publicly so fast and so quickly after the disastrous debate and critical aftermath. It leaves me questioning the veracity of the true diagnosis his doctor has given. There is precedence there with his unscheduled emergency trip to hospital which was just for “routine tests” last year. It’s no stretch to imagine this diagnosis is a false one considering that. I’ll take interest in watching a narcissist leverage this for all the attention and sympathy it will generate in the weeks ahead and I’ll patiently wait for his inevitable and miraculous “recovery”. See? Covid-19, not a big deal! VoteTrump2020 etc. Desperate times call for desperate measures. If the only thing keeping you from getting indicted and charged is your position as POTUS then wouldn't you be willing to drum up anything to protect that position? This is Trump swinging for the fences/throwing a Hail Mary pass. When someone has told over 20k verified lies while in office then, you reap what you sow, and you invite suspicion in lieu of any sympathy.

    Chips Lovell wrote: »
    Mod Note

    Let's drop the conspiracy theories. There's another forum for that. If you think someone is lying about having COVID-19, you'll need to something to substantiate it beyond mere speculation.

    ##Mod Note##

    Literally just had a Mod Note on this.

    Unless & until there is actual evidence , let's park the speculation please.


  • Options
    #7001
    Quin_Dub
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 15,116 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    Just theorising on a worst case scenario.

    What would happen if Trump (or Biden) were to win the Election but dies (or have to retire due to ill health) before the Electoral college vote (December 12th I think?)

    In the case of Trump , Pence would become POTUS at least until January 20th , but what would happen to the Electoral college vote if the person was no longer there to take the post for the next 4 years?

    I've read a bunch of stuff about contested EC votes etc. etc. but don't think I've ever seen if a scenario like that is accounted for in the rules.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7002
    Inquitus
    Registered Users Posts: 13,734 ✭✭✭✭Inquitus


    Quin_Dub wrote: »
    Just theorising on a worst case scenario.

    What would happen if Trump (or Biden) were to win the Election but dies (or have to retire due to ill health) before the Electoral college vote (December 12th I think?)

    In the case of Trump , Pence would become POTUS at least until January 20th , but what would happen to the Electoral college vote if the person was no longer there to take the post for the next 4 years?

    I've read a bunch of stuff about contested EC votes etc. etc. but don't think I've ever seen if a scenario like that is accounted for in the rules.
    No President-elect has in fact failed to be sworn in. Nevertheless, the rules for what would happen if a President-elect were to be unavailable to be sworn in actually became a part of our law with the adoption of the 20th Amendment in 1933. This amendment was passed primarily to shorten the length of time between the general election and the beginning of the new administration (inauguration day was moved from March to January). But it also specified that if, at the time of the inauguration, the President-elect has died, then the Vice-President-elect becomes President, and if a President has not yet been qualified by that time, then the Vice-President-elect acts as President until a President has been so qualified. The concern was that, since inauguration day was moved earlier, provision had to be made to cover cases in which the Electoral College vote did not prove decisive and the winner had to be chosen through a possibly lengthy series of votes in Congress.

    https://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/20431


  • Options
    #7003
    droidus
    Registered Users Posts: 1,545 ✭✭✭droidus


    Phoebas wrote: »
    Trump gives it to Biden. Biden dies. Trump wins the Presidency.

    PM me to discuss terms for the movie rights.

    It'll be weekend at Bernie's 3 except 70 million people are in on it.

    I really hope that debate stage was well ventilated. It would be very 2020 for Biden to die after contracting it from Trump.


  • Options
    #7004
    droidus
    Registered Users Posts: 1,545 ✭✭✭droidus


    Also have to wonder what would happen if Trump is knocked out of the race or leaves with this as an excuse. Obviously one would assume that Biden beats Pence everytime, but it's also possible that Pence is a better bet than Trump at this stage.


  • Options
    #7005
    seamus
    Registered Users Posts: 68,317 ✭✭✭✭seamus


    I wouldn't be too concerned about Trump spreading it to Biden.

    If you look at images of the event, there was a good 3 metres between them, and the podiums configured so that they were actually facing the moderator more than eachother.

    It's not impossible, but we already know that distancing beyond two metres puts the odds of catching it into the fractional percent range.


  • Options
    #7006
    stefanovich
    Registered Users Posts: 5,490 ✭✭✭stefanovich


    valoren wrote: »
    his failure to condemn white supremacists

    Can the proud boys be described as such? Aren't they a fairly diverse bunch?


  • Options
    #7007
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    The messy part is if he dies after the election but before the electors make him President Elect.

    Some states have laws saying the electors have to vote for the person on the ballot.


  • Options
    #7008
    Quin_Dub
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 15,116 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    Inquitus wrote: »
    https://teachinghistory.org/history-content/ask-a-historian/20431
    No President-elect has in fact failed to be sworn in. Nevertheless, the rules for what would happen if a President-elect were to be unavailable to be sworn in actually became a part of our law with the adoption of the 20th Amendment in 1933. This amendment was passed primarily to shorten the length of time between the general election and the beginning of the new administration (inauguration day was moved from March to January). But it also specified that if, at the time of the inauguration, the President-elect has died, then the Vice-President-elect becomes President, and if a President has not yet been qualified by that time, then the Vice-President-elect acts as President until a President has been so qualified. The concern was that, since inauguration day was moved earlier, provision had to be made to cover cases in which the Electoral College vote did not prove decisive and the winner had to be chosen through a possibly lengthy series of votes in Congress.


    What does "qualified" mean here?

    If the President Elect dies before the Electoral College vote but after the election does mean that they have not been "qualified"?

    Does that mean a new Election?


  • Options
    #7009
    Inquitus
    Registered Users Posts: 13,734 ✭✭✭✭Inquitus


    Quin_Dub wrote: »
    What does "qualified" mean here?

    If the President Elect dies before the Electoral College vote but after the election does mean that they have not been "qualified"?

    Does that mean a new Election?

    Not "Qualified" means no Electoral College outcome, I believe, that sends it to Congress and then probably to the Supreme Court. Unfaithful electors, abstentions in the Electoral college, that sort of stuff could lead to no qualification I guess, or perhaps a 3rd Party candidate hoovering up enough Electoral votes to leave noone with 270+.


  • Options
    #7010
    Brussels Sprout
    Registered Users Posts: 6,649 ✭✭✭Brussels Sprout


    stefanovich wrote: »
    Can the proud boys be described as such? Aren't they a fairly diverse bunch?

    Yes, I believe some of them have beards and some of them do not.


  • Options
    #7011
    duploelabs
    Registered Users Posts: 11,173 ✭✭✭✭duploelabs


    Brussels Sprout wrote: »
    Yes, I believe some of them have beards and some of them do not.

    Are there any 'proud girls'?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7012
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    8% death rate in 70-80 year old, obesity bumps that by half, giving a 12% chance he dies.

    Quite a bit less than the odds on him winning.

    Would be very close to the election, too late to change ballots. Some people have already voted.


  • Options
    #7013
    everlast75
    Registered Users Posts: 19,110 ✭✭✭✭everlast75


    duploelabs wrote: »
    Are there any 'proud girls'?

    I have a feeling that if there were, they wouldn't be as angry and heading out to cause trouble...


  • Options
    #7014
    droidus
    Registered Users Posts: 1,545 ✭✭✭droidus


    seamus wrote: »
    I wouldn't be too concerned about Trump spreading it to Biden.

    If you look at images of the event, there was a good 3 metres between them, and the podiums configured so that they were actually facing the moderator more than eachother.

    It's not impossible, but we already know that distancing beyond two metres puts the odds of catching it into the fractional percent range.

    Lets hope.
    The two candidates did not shake hands under Covid rules, and their lecterns were about 10ft apart, but for the majority of the debate the president was speaking, sometimes at high volume, in Biden’s direction in an indoor venue in Cleveland.

    Saskia Popescu, an epidemiologist and assistant professor at the George Mason University, said it was “entirely possible” Biden had been exposed, as Trump would have been infectious for 48 before testing positive.

    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2020/oct/02/donald-trump-tests-positive-coronavirus-covid-mike-pence-joe-biden-us-politics-live-latest-news


  • Options
    #7015
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,447 ✭✭✭weisses


    duploelabs wrote: »
    Are there any 'proud girls'?

    That will be the ones with the moustaches


  • Options
    #7016
    Quin_Dub
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 15,116 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    droidus wrote: »
    Lets hope.



    https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/live/2020/oct/02/donald-trump-tests-positive-coronavirus-covid-mike-pence-joe-biden-us-politics-live-latest-news

    QQ - From a Contact tracing perspective , if you are a close contact and you get tested right away and get the all clear , is that it or is there still a possibility you might come down with it some time later?

    Just thinking in the context of Biden (or Pence or anybody else) , would he have to isolate for 2 weeks automatically or does a negative test give him the all clear there and then?


  • Options
    #7017
    droidus
    Registered Users Posts: 1,545 ✭✭✭droidus


    Yeah, I think you would have to be tested again within a few days to be sure, and then probably again a week or so later.

    IIRC the guidance here is to isolate even in the event of a negative test.


  • Options
    #7018
    Inquitus
    Registered Users Posts: 13,734 ✭✭✭✭Inquitus


    Quin_Dub wrote: »
    QQ - From a Contact tracing perspective , if you are a close contact and you get tested right away and get the all clear , is that it or is there still a possibility you might come down with it some time later?

    Just thinking in the context of Biden (or Pence or anybody else) , would he have to isolate for 2 weeks automatically or does a negative test give him the all clear there and then?

    Seems at least 5 days post contact is ideal for 95% accuracy, I assume Biden is using the best testing and not the PCR test which the rest of us are stuck with:
    The diagnostic test, known as a “PCR test,” works by detecting genetic material from SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, in the nose and upper throat. A study that examined false-negative rates post-exposure, found that during the four days of infection prior to symptom onset, the probability of a false negative on the PCR test went from 100 percent on Day 1 to 67 percent on Day 4. And even on the day individuals began showing symptoms, the false negative rate was still 38 percent, dropping to 20 percent three days after symptom onset. Of course, much depends on the sensitivity of the particular test being used. MIT Medical is using a test that has been shown to have a false-negative rate of less than 5 percent five days post exposure.

    https://medical.mit.edu/covid-19-updates/2020/07/when-should-i-be-tested


  • Options
    #7019
    gmisk
    Registered Users Posts: 32,215 ✭✭✭✭gmisk


    duploelabs wrote: »
    Are there any 'proud girls'?
    There is a wing called proud boys girls....
    Bizarre for an organisation that is opposed to feminism and promotes gender stereotypes in which women are subservient to men...but hey!
    America!


  • Options
    #7020
    Quin_Dub
    Moderators, Politics Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators Posts: 15,116 Mod ✭✭✭✭Quin_Dub


    Inquitus wrote: »
    Seems at least 5 days post contact is ideal:



    https://medical.mit.edu/covid-19-updates/2020/07/when-should-i-be-tested

    Ok - So for Biden , if he was tested today , that's ~3 days from potential exposure and then maybe Sunday/Monday test again to be sure.

    Someone like Pence who was probably with Trump yesterday at some point, he's in isolation until maybe Tuesday/Wednesday assuming all goes well with a negative test result.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7021
    Carfacemandog
    Registered Users Posts: 2,042 ✭✭✭Carfacemandog


    stefanovich wrote: »
    Can the proud boys be described as such? Aren't they a fairly diverse bunch?

    Why in your opinion when asked about white supremacists did Trump specifically bring up the Proud Boys?


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement