US Presidential Election 2020

[leicsmac]

22 minutes ago, Innovindil said:

I think it's pretty telling that on the exit poll of the top 5 important issues that is posted on the BBC, climate change doesn't specifically appear to be stated on it. 

 

 

Yep, that doesn't surprise me much at all - but it is a problem.

 

17 minutes ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

We're in the middle of a global pandemic with huge job losses and economies in ruin, we've got left vs. right violence on the street due to BLM and racial divides, as well as people able to freely buy guns which get used in mass murders.

 

I think it's pretty obvious why climate policy isn't a huge concern for people at the minute, they're more worried about feeding their families, keeping them safe and ensuring a roof is kept above their head. It's the same scenario for most places around the globe I'd imagine.

...right, so it is "I don't care about the future including my own/people beyond my line of sight" dressed up, then?

 

Perhaps I should rephrase: I get the justifications that mentality provides, I just don't get the mentality itself. And I'd like to, because understanding and negating it could well be key somewhere down the line.

 

19 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

I'd love to see the video of trump removing sorting machines.

..will the legal and/or executive order transcripts do?

[Guest Chocolate Teapot]

2 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

That is unfortunately a bit of a nonsense argument.  Grouping stuff you sell together with costs sod all to do with what you sell doesn't negate those costs.  Do you believe the BBC world is profitable because of the content provided by reporters in Wisconsin?  Or because it also happens to make Top gear.

The only nonsense argument being made here is your own. You ignored facts laid out in front of you to suit your own stance. You don't have to like the BBC and you can question the licence fee but the point you made makes no sense at all.

[leicsmac]

As an aside, one thing from all this that does surprise me: I thought all along that Trump was tapped out in terms of voters and he'd get no more voting for him than in 2016 as anyone attracted to his platform would come along early doors.

 

Well, he's managed to pull at least an extra three million across the nation from somewhere, so I was pretty damn wrong there.

[Jon the Hat]

Just now, Abrasive fox said:

The only nonsense argument being made here is your own. You ignored facts laid out in front of you to suit your own stance. You don't have to like the BBC and you can question the licence fee but the point you made makes no sense at all.

Edited my post as I realised Top Gear is BBC world not BBC World news.  I guess if they are self funding that makes sense.

[Lionator]

7 minutes ago, surrifox said:

This election probably more than any other I’ve paid attention to has cast a light onto the selection process for the Supreme Court and its potential role in deciding the outcome . What an utter shitshow that’s been - 

 

you can point at the House of Lords role in UK politics but they don’t have make or break powers over who the government will be 

At the end of the day, if Biden gets the 270 then the supreme court will have the choice between declaring a Biden victory or invalidating everything the US has stood for over it's 225 years of history

[ealingfox]

One thing you could take from the polls is that people are even more reluctant to admit supporting Trump after 4 years of his presidency than 4 months of his candidacy

 

 

[Finnegan]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

will the legal and/or executive order transcripts do?

 

No. Forget the countless news sources that reported on it back in August, Jon expects you to show video evidence of the president himself carting machines out of buildings or it didn't happen. 

 

[Babylon]

6 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

That is unfortunately a bit of a nonsense argument.  Grouping stuff you sell together with costs sod all to do with what you sell doesn't negate those costs.  Do you believe the BBC world news is profitable because of the content provided by reporters in Wisconsin?  Or because it trades off BBC content from other parts of the BBC.

Ok Trump light. 

[Kingleicester]

Trump is 3/1 now no chance of winning it at them odds

[Jon the Hat]

Just now, leicsmac said:

As an aside, one thing from all this that does surprise me: I thought all along that Trump was tapped out in terms of voters and he'd get no more voting for him than in 2016 as anyone attracted to his platform would come along early doors.

 

Well, he's managed to pull at least an extra three million across the nation from somewhere, so I was pretty damn wrong there.

He hasn't done all that badly as President in my opinion.  He knows who his voters are, and he has done things to keep them onside.  The people spending all day condemning him every day are never going to vote for him, and he has made no effort to reach out.

Some of his successes include:

Stood up to China

Getting other NATO members to step up their military spending

Scrapping the Iran deal which was not stopping them destabilising the ME, and has led to some amazing progress on peace deals between Israel and Arab states

He has also reduced the Republican resistance to gay equality as he moved the voter base and is not reliant on Christian fundie votes

Re-positioned the GOP in the eyes of the working class by actually listening to them

 

Not all bad.  He is still a massive embarrassing arsehole on a personal basis, and he will say anything to piss people off or whip them up.

[Babylon]

Hope the voting slips are better than the 2000 ones and the badly punched holes. 

[Jon the Hat]

6 minutes ago, Finnegan said:

 

No. Forget the countless news sources that reported on it back in August, Jon expects you to show video evidence of the president himself carting machines out of buildings or it didn't happen. 

 

It was a joke!  As I understand it Trump refused to fund $billions of additional money to US Post which they said they needed to cope with states sending every registered voter a postal ballot.  They did it anyway, and people have voted by post in incredible numbers.  Is it possible some votes got lost?  Of course.  Will it make a difference?  Unlikely I think, but the court will no doubt decide if comes down to it.

[Jon the Hat]

5 minutes ago, Babylon said:

Ok Trump light. 

Ha.  As I said yesterday I think on balance I would prefer a Biden victory, but I am not at all surprised it is much closer than the polls suggested.  Also not surprise Trump is coming out with this fraud nonsense.

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Jon the Hat said:

He hasn't done all that badly as President in my opinion.  He knows who his voters are, and he has done things to keep them onside.  The people spending all day condemning him every day are never going to vote for him, and he has made no effort to reach out.

Some of his successes include:

Stood up to China

Getting other NATO members to step up their military spending

Scrapping the Iran deal which was not stopping them destabilising the ME, and has led to some amazing progress on peace deals between Israel and Arab states

He has also reduced the Republican resistance to gay equality as he moved the voter base and is not reliant on Christian fundie votes

Re-positioned the GOP in the eyes of the working class by actually listening to them

 

Not all bad.  He is still a massive embarrassing arsehole on a personal basis, and he will say anything to piss people off or whip them up.

Not sure at all about the bolded (have you seen some of the state legislation regarding discrim- sorry, "religious rights"?), but substitute the Artemis Program in there as that's a success too.

 

However, I can't see how with everything else that has happened, his administration can be seen as anything other than a net negative, unless foreign policy concerning "defense" is somehow the single most important issue now.

[Nalis]

9 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

As an aside, one thing from all this that does surprise me: I thought all along that Trump was tapped out in terms of voters and he'd get no more voting for him than in 2016 as anyone attracted to his platform would come along early doors.

 

Well, he's managed to pull at least an extra three million across the nation from somewhere, so I was pretty damn wrong there.

 

7 minutes ago, ealingfox said:

One thing you could take from the polls is that people are even more reluctant to admit supporting Trump after 4 years of his presidency than 4 months of his candidacy

 

 

I guess we should never underestimate the number of silent right wing voters out there.

[what?]

On 28/10/2020 at 10:37, what? said:

The question could well be less 'can Biden win?' and more 'what happens when trump refuses to accept the results?' There was a very detailed/terrifying long read in The Atlantic going over this possibility. I think it should be free to read to most. Turns out the system really isn't built to counter the possibility of a sitting president refusing to concede.

 

https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2020/11/what-if-trump-refuses-concede/616424/

 

edit: I just reread the whole thing again from when it was first published a few weeks ago Oof, really worth a read if you have the time. Some extremely scary shit could go down between election and inauguration days.

Probably a good time to rehighlight this article that goes into a lot of the possible outcomes of Trump contesting the result. Unfortunately, it's way more complicated than the Supreme Court just deciding on any uncertainty. There's even one scenario where three people (Pelosi being the third) end up with legitimate claims to the presidency. The whole system just has never really been tested in this way before. 

 

The best hope was a Biden landslide that was beyond contestation but that hasn't happened. **** knows what will happen now tbh 

[leicsmac]

1 minute ago, Nalis said:

 

I guess we should never underestimate the number of silent right wing voters out there.

It's strange - the pollsters nailed it down with such things in 2018 under similar circumstances, but have had big errors in 2016 and 2020. I wonder why?

[Jon the Hat]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Not sure at all about the bolded (have you seen some of the state legislation regarding discrim- sorry, "religious rights"?), but substitute the Artemis Program in there as that's a success too.

 

However, I can't see how with everything else that has happened, his administration can be seen as anything other than a net negative, unless foreign policy concerning "defense" is somehow the single most important issue now.

I tend to think the change in China policy will turn out to be hugely important. 

He has also boosted the economy and cut red tape considerably, but I know some of that has impacted climate protection which is controversial.

Edited 4 November 2020 by Jon the Hat

[Leicester_Loyal]

29 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Yep, that doesn't surprise me much at all - but it is a problem.

 

...right, so it is "I don't care about the future including my own/people beyond my line of sight" dressed up, then?

 

Perhaps I should rephrase: I get the justifications that mentality provides, I just don't get the mentality itself. And I'd like to, because understanding and negating it could well be key somewhere down the line.

 

..will the legal and/or executive order transcripts do?

Why would people care about 100 years time if they can't even feed their children in the current day and age? I know that's a bit drastic but there's a lot of people who face the possibility of losing a lot due to the economic situation.

Edited 4 November 2020 by Leicester_Loyal

[Jon the Hat]

5 minutes ago, Nalis said:

 

I guess we should never underestimate the number of silent right wing voters out there.

I'm not sure they are silent, more ignored by most of the media.

[Guest TamworthFoxes]

6 minutes ago, Nalis said:

 

I guess we should never underestimate the number of silent right wing voters out there.

No, please carry on doing so, it makes the melt down from the left even more hilarious afterwards.

[Kingleicester]

Bad vibes about  Biden’s attitude to the uk

[ealingfox]

3 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

I'm not sure they are silent, more ignored by most of the media.

 

We're talking about responses to polling - what does that have to do with the media?

[leicsmac]

2 minutes ago, Jon the Hat said:

I tend to think the change in China policy will turn out to be hugely important. 

He has also boosted the economy and cut red tape considerably, but I know some of that has impacted climate protection which is controversial.

Controversial is certainly one way of putting it.

 

"a suicidal and homicidal lack of interest in the future" might be another.

 

1 minute ago, Leicester_Loyal said:

Why would people care about 100 years time if they can't even feed their children in the current day on age? I know that's a bit drastic but there's a lot of people who face the possibility of losing a lot due to the economic situation.

...because it really shouldn't have to be said or demonstrated that you should care about other people and if we're appealing to self-interest it could well be their own life or that of their kids of grandkids they're saving later on?

 

In any case, a country that actually has its stuff together should probably be doing enough to balance the economy with sustainable development and reducing carbon emissions - it's not an either/or.

[RoboFox]

Odds on Biden victory now incredibly short, 1/4, because 95% of votes in updates in Michigan falling to him.

 

Come on, Joey baby.

 

Edited 4 November 2020 by RoboFox