2020 USA Democratic Presidential General Election

[TRENCH 15,340]

10 minutes ago, Macintosh Manhattan said:

The cherry.mp3 on the cake? 

 

His own neice has skull dragged him https://amp.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/08/mary-trump-on-the-end-of-uncle-donald-all-he-has-now-is-breaking-things

Quote

The fact that the Republicans have done better than expected in Congress and the Senate will have made him extraordinarily angry. It means that people were voting against Donald Trump in this election, but not necessarily against this party. That will have added so much salt to his narcissistic wounds.

this is true, so many republicans did well in local elections, I know his ass is fuming that he lost both the electoral and popular votes. this is so iconic LMAOOOO

[Mer 51,020]

21 hours ago, HydroponicWeeds said:

Biden winning is better than Trump winning, but what’s scary is how our relationship with NK could go south. I hope Kim Jong Un agrees to talk to Biden and forms a better relationship but for some reason I’m worried it’ll turn sour again. Trump was a bad president but at least he got us in talks with NK instead of starting WW3 like everyone thought 

 

we’ll probably have a stronger relationship with S. Korea under Biden, signalling a stronger presence of allied troops in the South China Sea. NK was excited over Trump’s refusal to back the SK govt, something i think Biden would quickly change. 

 

I think the best course of action is to invest in our military in expanding and building upon the anti-missile system (that is currently shoddy at best). if we can get that technology to have a 99% success rate in shooting down missiles over the pacific ocean when they’re headed to the US, NK loses a lot of credibility.  

[lamms 11,603]

for some reason it never occured to me that there are people betting on elections

i wish i had 27k to spend on a whim lmao

[Mer 51,020]

23 minutes ago, lamms said:

for some reason it never occured to me that there are people betting on elections

i wish i had 27k to spend on a whim lmao

 

on any other election i would’ve bet (but never more than a grand). but this election was too risky/unpredictable to drop money on tbh. 

[baddisease 15,852]

5 hours ago, Mer Boy said:

 

we’ll probably have a stronger relationship with S. Korea under Biden, signalling a stronger presence of allied troops in the South China Sea. NK was excited over Trump’s refusal to back the SK govt, something i think Biden would quickly change. 

 

I think the best course of action is to invest in our military in expanding and building upon the anti-missile system (that is currently shoddy at best). if we can get that technology to have a 99% success rate in shooting down missiles over the pacific ocean when they’re headed to the US, NK loses a lot of credibility.  

 

how unfortunate. Trump's DPRK policy is probably the best policy I've seen on it in my time focusing on that subject.

[Mer 51,020]

48 minutes ago, baddisease said:

 

how unfortunate. Trump's DPRK policy is probably the best policy I've seen on it in my time focusing on that subject.

 

yes. I always found Trump to be refreshingly un-militaristic. But center-liberals are hardly ever as such.

 

HRC wrote an essay in Foreign Affairs Magazine this month about how the next administration needs to re-think the military, getting rid of antiquated technology and investing in cheaper operation costs. I actually agree with her. Our military is stuck in the cold war period of the 80s, and China has been advancing ahead of us because what they lack in manpower they make up for in technology. I really hope a Biden Administration will both scale down our military, while modernizing it to be more efficient and technologically advanced.

 

I think threats like NK are better treated with reduced physical military presence in the South China Sea, but increased protection technology in Alaska and small remote-operated drone bases in S. Korea (to keep the threat alive in NK's eyes). I know Trump tried diplomacy, but I honestly don't think that works with these regimes (as evidenced by NK constantly expanding its arsenal). 

 

Spoiler

I know this is a bit too "sci-fi" and brutal, but honestly if our military had the ability to create targeted "natural" disasters (which were untraceable back to the US) in certain areas where nuclear arsenals are kept, I think we should use it. 

 

[baddisease 15,852]

1 hour ago, Mer Boy said:

 

yes. I always found Trump to be refreshingly un-militaristic. But center-liberals are hardly ever as such.

 

HRC wrote an essay in Foreign Affairs Magazine this month about how the next administration needs to re-think the military, getting rid of antiquated technology and investing in cheaper operation costs. I actually agree with her. Our military is stuck in the cold war period of the 80s, and China has been advancing ahead of us because what they lack in manpower they make up for in technology. I really hope a Biden Administration will both scale down our military, while modernizing it to be more efficient and technologically advanced.

 

I think threats like NK are better treated with reduced physical military presence in the South China Sea, but increased protection technology in Alaska and small remote-operated drone bases in S. Korea (to keep the threat alive in NK's eyes). I know Trump tried diplomacy, but I honestly don't think that works with these regimes (as evidenced by NK constantly expanding its arsenal). 

 

  Hide contents

I know this is a bit too "sci-fi" and brutal, but honestly if our military had the ability to create targeted "natural" disasters (which were untraceable back to the US) in certain areas where nuclear arsenals are kept, I think we should use it. 

 

 

Personally, I don't think NK is actually a threat. All it wants is to exist independently from American hegemony and to reunify with ROK as a 1 country, 2 systems confederation. And I don't view China as a threat either, it just wants to secure a moderately prosperous society in all respects and does not seek international superpowerdom/hegemony.

 

I hope that Biden decides to not harass China and DPRK and permits them to function as they desire.

[Ultra Violet 18,410]

So besides recounting the votes in certain states, is there anything else that could possibly prevent Biden becoming President?

I know that Trump is just unable to admit defeat, but it's also worrying me how many people are pushing this too. 

[Mer 51,020]

43 minutes ago, baddisease said:

 

Personally, I don't think NK is actually a threat. All it wants is to exist independently from American hegemony and to reunify with ROK as a 1 country, 2 systems confederation. And I don't view China as a threat either, it just wants to secure a moderately prosperous society in all respects and does not seek international superpowerdom/hegemony.

 

I hope that Biden decides to not harass China and DPRK and permits them to function as they desire.

 

I agree with you, I don't think NK is a threat. But not addressing the non-threat allows political opponents to use it as a weakness unfortunately, especially in a divide America. 

 

I think China is a direct threat to its own people (especially its journalists, activists, and women), but not to the US--and as such we should have minimal involvement. We are not likely to have a shooting war with China anytime soon. A prosperous rich China is much better for the world than a weakened poorer China. Obviously it is the job of the UN to ensure that a member is properly addressing human rights in their country, not the job of the US solely or majorly. 

 

However, we cannot begin removing ourselves from our occupations of foreign nations until China vows and upkeeps a promise to do the same. After we left the Nuclear Treaty with Iran, China swooped in and is now not only investing in Iran, but also buying off large pieces of their land to have large bases in already unstable Middle-Eastern regions (e.g. the purported wishes of China to purchase from Iran the Persian Gulf island of Kish). Our best course of action with dealing with China is to go to each of our adversaries first and offer them a peace treaty so they can rely on us as an ally, instead of allowing them to team up with China with the intent on creating further conflict for the Chinese to capitalize on. On the topic of NK, if we can negotiate a peace treaty with them, we no longer need presence in the South China Sea, as we can be assured that they will not accept military help from China. 

 

China's goal is not only to become an economic superpower (no problem with that), its that they want to become the only economic superpower--and are willing to send the world into turmoil with proxy wars in the South China Sea and the Middle East to do so. In that regards, we need to have good diplomacy with all the countries in the world (especially our current adversaries) and make sure China cannot propagate a conflict anywhere. 

 

But, I do not believe Biden (or any political figure in our current climate) to be able to do that. It is an almost impossible task, and requires the entire world to set aside religion, machoism, and nationalism for a greater good that many refuse to believe can even exist in an altruistic way. omg sorry for the rambling! 

[Mer 51,020]

36 minutes ago, Ultra Violet said:

So besides recounting the votes in certain states, is there anything else that could possibly prevent Biden becoming President?

I know that Trump is just unable to admit defeat, but it's also worrying me how many people are pushing this too. 

 

don't worry, if protest size could undermine our peaceful transition of power, the Women's March in 2017 would've ended Trump's chances of being sworn in right then and there. People are hyped up right now because of the election, by January most people will shrug and move on--regardless of which side they're on right now.  You overestimate the American's people ability to be enraged at just one thing for more than a couple days lol. 

[Ultra Violet 18,410]

16 hours ago, Mer Boy said:

 

don't worry, if protest size could undermine our peaceful transition of power, the Women's March in 2017 would've ended Trump's chances of being sworn in right then and there. People are hyped up right now because of the election, by January most people will shrug and move on--regardless of which side they're on right now.  You overestimate the American's people ability to be enraged at just one thing for more than a couple days lol. 

Okay good cause I see so many people under every single news post being like "he hasn't won yet, blah blah" and I just don't see the point. They aren't changing anything by fighting so hard against admitting he is going to be president. I was hoping it's just a waste of their energy lol 

[Mer 51,020]

10 days after polls closed, all the states have finally been called. President-Elect Joe Biden won 306 electoral votes (the same number Trump won in 2016, which he claimed was the "biggest landslide since Reagan" [it was not]). No blue states from 2016 flipped red, but 5 red states flipped blue: Arizona (first time blue since 1996), Georgia (first time blue since 1992), Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. A hand recount is currently underway in Georgia, but because Biden leads by 14,000 votes, it is unlikely to change. States have until December to certify their results. Today, Trump lost a lawsuit in Michigan, and withdrew a lawsuit in Arizona. Sources close to the outgoing-President state that he "will do the right thing" (hopefully meaning he will concede). 

 

This is the 2020 Electoral Map. It is the sixth biggest Democratic Victory since World War 2 (1. Johnson '64, 2. Clinton '96, 3. Clinton '92, 4. Obama '08,  5. Obama '12, 6.  Biden '20, 7. Tie: JFK '60 and Truman '48, 8. Carter '76. 

 

[lamms 11,603]

12 minutes ago, Mer Boy said:

Sources close to the outgoing-President state that he "will do the right thing"

as if he has another option. the military will kick his ass out lmao

[knives 2,524]

7 hours ago, Fat Mike said:

This person refuses to forgive her own family members for their political beliefs. IMHO we have to forgive.

 

sorry, but wanting to deny somebody human rights is not a political belief. we can disagree about budgeting and the debt ceiling or whatever, but i have zero obligation to forgive anyone -- including some of my own family members -- for voting for a person who does not believe in protecting the rights of marginalized people and refuses to denounce violence and hate.

 

it takes an amazing amount of privilege to tell others to "forgive" people who actively vote someone into office who seeks to strip you of your rights and encourage bigotry. after my father told me he sees nothing but "disaster and ruin" for my brother and i, his two queer kids, simply because we are queer, and then voted for donald trump, a man who would love nothing more than to see those very words come to fruition, i think i'm allowed to pass on the whole forgiveness thing.

[Mer 51,020]

2 minutes ago, knives said:

 

sorry, but wanting to deny somebody human rights is not a political belief. we can disagree about budgeting and the debt ceiling or whatever, but i have zero obligation to forgive anyone -- including some of my own family members -- for voting for a person who does not believe in protecting the rights of marginalized people and refuses to denounce violence and hate.

 

it takes an amazing amount of privilege to tell others to "forgive" people who actively vote someone into office who seeks to strip you of your rights and encourage bigotry. after my father told me he sees nothing but "disaster and ruin" for my brother and i, his two queer kids, simply because we are queer, and then voted for donald trump, a man who would love nothing more than to see those very words come to fruition, i think i'm allowed to pass on the whole forgiveness thing.

 

this. i always tell my family members: “we can disagree on the path to get there, but we cannot disagree on the end goal”

[Crimson and Clover 22,030]

lol 

[Mer 51,020]

Much to unpack here. 

 

23 minutes ago, Fat Mike said:

Beyond forgivness, you could just accept that other people exist, and that they might have different opinions than you do

 

I would point you back to what dear @knives said, that human rights aren't "opinions". As for the "legal" argument, actually many "laws" were broken and/or re-written under the Trump Administration. Acting-AG Sally Yates was fired because she would not bend the law to make the Muslim Ban legal. Furthermore, it was also once legal to jail a man for being homosexual, and it was legal to disallow black people from entering your business. Legality =/= morality, or even ethical. 

 

26 minutes ago, Fat Mike said:

IMHO liberals are probably more likely to go to an emotional response for an answer. I see these people reacting, and saying they want to put "deplorables" on a list -- that would, at the very least, prohibit certain law abiding citizens from participating equally in a civil society. 

 

I have not heard a single Democrat in the House, Senate, or White House state this. What is your source? 

 

27 minutes ago, Fat Mike said:

You embolden people by threatening them. Now look at all the team red members who are going along with the idea that the election is rigged -- that happened after they were threatened.

 

Threatened by who? And for what? I think it speaks to great volumes if Trump supporters believe that accountability, equality, and justice are "threatening". 

 

29 minutes ago, Fat Mike said:

And why is it that the people who want to defund the police, are sometimes the ones most likely to need a cop? Now we want a civil, 'normal' society, and to have equal protection under the law. Well, what if the other side doesn't feel like being rational now?

 

 

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2020/06/19/what-does-defund-the-police-mean-and-does-it-have-merit/ I urge you to read up on what "defund the police" means. It does not mean "abolish the police". Saying the "other side" does not want to be "rational" sounds an awful lot like condoning police brutality tbh...not a good choice of words. 

 

31 minutes ago, Fat Mike said:

And if you want to call all Trump supporters bigots, why don't you ask Kanye West, Lil' Wayne and Ice Cube about that. Why don't you ask the 17% Black male vote Trump got about that? It's too easy to say the other side is all full of racists. Sometimes you have to watch out for the people who are calling everybody else racists.

 

I don't think anyone is calling every Trump voter racist. But, in the act of voting for him, you decided to put the economy and your own financial well-being over the rights of those who do not have the resources you have. You cast an identical ballot to the KKK. You turned your head the other way because it doesn't effect you. Ice Cube, Lil' Wayne, and Kanye West do not live comparable lives to the majority of black Americans (and on that note, neither do I, so I don't feel right projecting my beliefs on others, this is simply my observation). 

 

TLDR: 

8 minutes ago, JehovahThikness said:

lol 

sums it up perfectly. 

[bloodydriver 4,565]

10 minutes ago, Fat Mike said:

Beyond forgivness, you could just accept that other people exist, and that they might have different opinions than you do -- even if they stood up for people being legally deported, etc.

There’s a difference between opinion and prejudice. As a society, I think we can disagree or agree on plain things such as favorite food, weather, tv shows, etc. Politically, similarly, everybody has a different opinion about how the government should be run and what it’s role in society should be. For example, I can say “oh I’m religious and I have different views on society than someone who’s not religious.” Thoughts like that are okay because people are allowed to voice out their opinions. The problem here is when someone’s opinion reaches and dwells into prejudice. I might say something like, “oh, I believe gay marriage is wrong... and there’s something mentally wrong with people who aren’t heterosexual or cisgender. Gay people, trans people, etc. should have their rights stripped away because they’re abnormal and need to be cured.” To want to strip someone’s rights simply for existing is not an ‘opinion,’ but rather a prejudiced attack on an individual’s personhood. If that individual does not feel comfortable with someone who wants to take their rights away, and they then chose to never see that person or talk or forgive that person, then they are in their right to do so. It is highly uncomfortable to live under the same roof of someone who does not believe in the right to your existence or personhood. Furthermore, it is highly uncomfortable to live under the same country where people do not believe in your right to exist. 

 

31 minutes ago, Fat Mike said:

That's not the way to respond. You embolden people by threatening them. Now look at all the team red members who are going along with the idea that the election is rigged

 I apologize, but do you have a source on this specific point? I am not sure what threats you are discussing, but from what I’ve seen online it seems to be more discussions and arguments on whether Trump or Biden are best suited for the nation. Furthermore, the statement you mentioned about how the ‘threats’ from the liberals are making conservatives believe that the election is rigged seem a bit odd. May I remind you that before the election Trump kept mentioning to his followers, “do not vote via mail-in ballots,” “mail-in ballots are rigged and prone to fraud,” etc. It is obvious that the reason why some conservatives believe that the election is rigged is simply because Trump “predicted” this happening, when the reality is is that left-leaning people tend to vote through mail-in voting for years as opposed to conservatives. Therefore, calling mail-in ballots, mostly liberal voters who are less likely to vote for Trump, fraudulent sets up the belief that votes for Biden and against Trump are rigged. From the start, I have viewed Trump followers call the election rigged due to the counting of mail-in ballots, and not of ‘threats’ you mentioned done after the projected winner of the election. 

 

42 minutes ago, Fat Mike said:

And if you want to call all Trump supporters bigots, why don't you ask Kanye West, Lil' Wayne and Ice Cube about that.

There are more issues presented than a simple black and white race issue. There are also class issues happening, and the fact is is that you mentioned three famous, and rich people in society. Disregarding the color of their skin for a moment, rich people most likely voted for Trump to preserve their wealth because they do not wish to be taxed more than they usually are. Bringing race back into the conversation, famous rich people of color do not face the same issues that common people do. They may have in the past, and perhaps lived in terrible backgrounds, but now all they do is worry about themselves and keep themselves away from the common people of society in a high castle. The truth of the matter is is that rich people do not understand how society works for the “rest of us,” and they’d rather vote for their own monetary interests rather than the interests of society as a whole.

 

❤️

[knives 2,524]

4 hours ago, Fat Mike said:

Beyond forgivness, you could just accept that other people exist, and that they might have different opinions than you do -- even if they stood for the legal deportations of others, etc. You think of all the stuff the Republicans do -- by the letter of the law -- and the only way to challenge everything is by being rational.

 

I'm sorry your father said that to you. You can choose not to believe him. Sometimes it's more healthy for people to not get along with certain family members. I can understand that. But in a broader sense, forgiveness/acceptance of others is important. If you can't forgive somebody, can you accept them as being a valid human being, even though they may have been under pressure to go along with things that you disagree with? They went along with somebody else's ideas. 

 

just going to respond to this part bc what i wanna say has already been said by @Mer Boy and @titanicearth (thanks yall)

 

i think where i'm having difficulty agreeing with you is that i don't have the mental capacity to lecture others on why i should have the same rights as cisgender heterosexual people. it's exhausting trying to reason with those people, who suffer from extreme cognitive dissonance (as well as the dunning-kruger effect) and it takes a toll on you. i could be wrong about what you're trying to imply here, but i just think it's unfair to expect every person, especially if theyre in a marginalized community, to possess the necessary amount of patience and strength it takes to educate bigoted trump supporters. i do not have either of those things. so i can understand why some people do not want to continue to have relationships with friends and/or family who voted for trump. it is not a marginalized person's job to educate people if they choose not to. i appreciate the resources we have today with the internet, but i think we've taken it to an extreme in expecting every person to educate other people on current issues. i just want to exist.

 

all in all, i agree, the only way to improve our country is to reach out to people and educate, but not everyone is capable of doing so. the article you linked to (idk, i didnt read the entire thing) is probably an example of folks like me, who just do not have the time, or effort, or emotional capability to hang around these people and explain basic human decency.

[baddisease 15,852]

6 minutes ago, Fat Mike said:

I don't even know what "cisgender" means. Maybe you can hang around for another minute and explain that to me. You guys all brought up references to gender and identity issues. You use some kind of new language that older people are supposed to totally get. Men are supposed to have more than one category now, too. And that's normal, right? Next you'll tell me that todlers are supposed to choose their own gender identity, and it's my problem if I don't get that. You're right if you think I don't completely understand this new world of identity issues and catagories.  

 

I'm not saying anyone should reach out to Trump supporters or accept bigots. A lot of them don't want you reaching out to them anyway. They think you're Satan. And you think they're Nazis. I don't know how we can go on as a country if both sides continue to dehumanize each other. And what if you weren't all really Satan, and they weren't all really Nazis? What if there's a lot of gray area and human nature involved? 

 

 

Do you know what Google is?