2020 US Election (Part One)

[metatron]

Y'all are totally missing the point. Whether Trump was right to dodge the draft or not is immaterial.

What matters is that he has lied about how he stayed out of the draft, and intimated if not flat out said he would have bravely gone and served if called. He claimed he got a high draft number. That is a lie. A lie he has told to cover up his past, which he likely believes shows evidence that he is a coward, who talks tough about the military but was not willing to serve if called.

Well, isn't that a bit potato potato? I mean when people lie about things like that they usually lie about the lie afterwards. They usually don't go "oh, yeah, i lied there, wasn't that smart of me?"
Allthough Trump might.

Anyway, my point is that Warren's own lying brings her to an awkward position in potentially attacking Trump on it. He can say: "Look, everbody cheats".
Like, that's his favorite game.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Tbh i havent watched infowars since 2014 or similar. But alex jones used to be funny

He might be/have been funny from a distance, like not in the US, but here he is a serious impediment to civility.

 

[Estebonrober]

He might be/have been funny from a distance, like not in the US, but here he is a serious impediment to civility.

It was a cute act back in the 90s and 00s when he was just a largely ignored conspiracy theorist on like Coast to Coast AM. Now he is an advocate for violence on a frequent basis.

 

[Berzerker]

He is a bad person.

But not because he avoided the draft... Thats what we're discussing and I fail to see why avoiding the war is worse than resume padding with an alleged Indian heritage. On the contrary...

 

[Bootstoots]

He might be/have been funny from a distance, like not in the US, but here he is a serious impediment to civility.

It was a cute act back in the 90s and 00s when he was just a largely ignored conspiracy theorist on like Coast to Coast AM. Now he is an advocate for violence on a frequent basis.

Back in 2016, I watched him pretty frequently. It was a weird mixture of funny, interesting, and terrifying. Funny for obvious reasons - he's a very theatrical lunatic and it was quite entertaining to watch how his thinking works and what kinds of implausible convoluted theories he could spin from mundane events. It was interesting because it was like a portal into an alternate reality, one where there really is a giant world shadow government controlling everything of note, where there are no coincidences, and where "the people" finally had a chance to take the power back. Millions of people live in that world to some extent or another. It's also a remarkable comment on how American thought has evolved that this sort of thing, once safely confined to the fringes, could find such a wide audience. And then it was terrifying.

On the eve of the election, what I believed to be the most probable outcome was a relatively narrow Clinton win. MI, WI, and PA would deliver her the election on 2-4 percentage point margins, and FL and NC could go either way. Trump would then claim fraud, of course. The question is this: how would Jones and the rest of the newly popular lunatics respond? If they responded with calls for armed revolt, the result could be a fair number of right-wing terrorist attacks and the formation of militias dwarfing anything we have seen before. Even a decentralized armed insurgency could be possible - not with any chance of winning, of course, but it wouldn't take a whole lot to trigger a response that would destroy most remaining civil liberties for everyone. It wouldn't have to happen immediately, either - tensions would likely build throughout Clinton's term, and it's impossible to predict when a breaking point might be passed. By being the most hysterical right-wing figure with a large following, Jones would likely have played a key role in instigating violence and/or fanning the flames if it happened.

When Trump won, a big part of me was relieved. Insurgency and/or widespread terrorism have become far less likely, and the collapse of the Democratic Party at all levels except the Presidency would stop and be partially reversed in time for the 2020 census year election, rather than continuing and perhaps even accelerating. Maybe I'm an alarmist on what the extreme right might have done, but I think there was reason for concern even if widespread violence wasn't the most likely outcome.

 

[Zkribbler]

... worse than resume padding with an alleged Indian heritage.

No resume padded.
Indian ancestry proven by DNA test.

Notice the GOP squealing their Pocahontas diatribe to avoid debating her policies. .

 

[Phrossack]

Back in 2016, I watched him pretty frequently. It was a weird mixture of funny, interesting, and terrifying. Funny for obvious reasons - he's a very theatrical lunatic and it was quite entertaining to watch how his thinking works and what kinds of implausible convoluted theories he could spin from mundane events. It was interesting because it was like a portal into an alternate reality, one where there really is a giant world shadow government controlling everything of note, where there are no coincidences, and where "the people" finally had a chance to take the power back. Millions of people live in that world to some extent or another. It's also a remarkable comment on how American thought has evolved that this sort of thing, once safely confined to the fringes, could find such a wide audience. And then it was terrifying.

On the eve of the election, what I believed to be the most probable outcome was a relatively narrow Clinton win. MI, WI, and PA would deliver her the election on 2-4 percentage point margins, and FL and NC could go either way. Trump would then claim fraud, of course. The question is this: how would Jones and the rest of the newly popular lunatics respond? If they responded with calls for armed revolt, the result could be a fair number of right-wing terrorist attacks and the formation of militias dwarfing anything we have seen before. Even a decentralized armed insurgency could be possible - not with any chance of winning, of course, but it wouldn't take a whole lot to trigger a response that would destroy most remaining civil liberties for everyone. It wouldn't have to happen immediately, either - tensions would likely build throughout Clinton's term, and it's impossible to predict when a breaking point might be passed. By being the most hysterical right-wing figure with a large following, Jones would likely have played a key role in instigating violence and/or fanning the flames if it happened.

When Trump won, a big part of me was relieved. Insurgency and/or widespread terrorism have become far less likely, and the collapse of the Democratic Party at all levels except the Presidency would stop and be partially reversed in time for the 2020 census year election, rather than continuing and perhaps even accelerating. Maybe I'm an alarmist on what the extreme right might have done, but I think there was reason for concern even if widespread violence wasn't the most likely outcome.

I agree that terrorism was very likely had Clinton won. However, we really don't want a situation in which one side starts a terrorist campaign whenever it loses and so wins elections through threat of force. I think we'll have to face a right-wing insurgency sooner or later. Enough conservatives believe that Democrats have no right to political office, or rights in general, and are sold on the legitimacy of political violence. Most of the rest would probably go along with it, passively or actively. Conservative media would beat the war drums 24/7, saying that the Democratic victory was illegitimate and illegal and that the Dems would be coming to take their guns, bring in tens of millions of non-white immigrants, and destroy America. They already beat those drums constantly, but losing power would set them off even more. And in this post-truth age of Trump, conservatives are much more resistant to contrary information, and much more fanatical.

We have to acknowledge that we're in the equivalent of the 1850s, what with the constantly growing divide and the fact that one party would rather rig elections and go to war than accept defeat peacefully. As with Lincoln, the next Democratic president-elect, or perhaps the one after that, will face the dilemma he did when states began to secede and attack Federal property and people. Inaction would mean defeat; a call to arms would guarantee civil war.

 

[innonimatu]

I very much doubt there would have been any terrorism due to a Clinton win. There wasn't any when Obama won, and he was the first black president, a "liberal" and all that.

It's like the Mueller thing, but from the other side: a lot of noise, some moves in the court of the empire, but no real consequences until the end of the cycle. They probably do their inflamed speeches and debates and then go for a private drink with their "enemies". Some fool among the plebes might get overenthusiastic but it would be a lone thing. What is one more shooting in the US?

I'm seeing this from the outside, so I may be wrong. But to me this seems to be a conflict brewed in the media, for the media. Infotainment. This board is skewered with several people interested in politics and discussing those things, for most people is is a show of little consequence. For what idea would they go to a civil war for? He colluded? She is corrupt? Really, war over that? It's circus!

I have a hard time arguing with people over the power-grabs by the proto-federal state in Europe, you think the situation in the US is unstable? Hell, nit even the UK with its brexit division is about to split. And that is one country wrestling with a big issue. Which corrupt party gets to hold office in the US is really not big enough to fight over, I think. If a big populist were to succeed Trump, willing to do more changes that merely ending a little war here or there, that might heat things up...

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I agree that terrorism was very likely had Clinton won. However, we really don't want a situation in which one side starts a terrorist campaign whenever it loses and so wins elections through threat of force. I think we'll have to face a right-wing insurgency sooner or later. Enough conservatives believe that Democrats have no right to political office, or rights in general, and are sold on the legitimacy of political violence. Most of the rest would probably go along with it, passively or actively. Conservative media would beat the war drums 24/7, saying that the Democratic victory was illegitimate and illegal and that the Dems would be coming to take their guns, bring in tens of millions of non-white immigrants, and destroy America. They already beat those drums constantly, but losing power would set them off even more. And in this post-truth age of Trump, conservatives are much more resistant to contrary information, and much more fanatical.

We have to acknowledge that we're in the equivalent of the 1850s, what with the constantly growing divide and the fact that one party would rather rig elections and go to war than accept defeat peacefully. As with Lincoln, the next Democratic president-elect, or perhaps the one after that, will face the dilemma he did when states began to secede and attack Federal property and people. Inaction would mean defeat; a call to arms would guarantee civil war.

I don't see the secession part happening. Republicans in power in a state aren't going to put that state in a position that will cost them their position. It's the "rank and file dingbats" who will be revolting (as if they aren't already) not people in authority. But I do expect there will be mob actions and state authorities in some states will slow play any response at their level and leave it to the feds.

 

[Phrossack]

I don't see the secession part happening. Republicans in power in a state aren't going to put that state in a position that will cost them their position. It's the "rank and file dingbats" who will be revolting (as if they aren't already) not people in authority. But I do expect there will be mob actions and state authorities in some states will slow play any response at their level and leave it to the feds.

Secession, no. But it's easy to imagine groups of disgruntled Republican voters, egged on by cries of "stolen election" and "taking our guns", protesting the vote with attacks on government facilities and maybe even areas known for large Democratic voter populations.

 

[Farm Boy]

There wasn't any when Obama won, and he was the first black president, a "liberal" and all that.

I remember my deporable friends and I, straight off the loss of McCain, wishing fervently that our new president "make it through his term(s)." He did. Now, a cynical man would say that either a) we were behind the times or b) that is the security apparatus working. And indeed, a certain degree of cynicism is warranted. But I'm guessing, for the most part, the country is different than the 1960s. And screw you fossils who aren't.

 

[Berzerker]

No resume padded.
Indian ancestry proven by DNA test.

Notice the GOP squealing their Pocahontas diatribe to avoid debating her policies. .

From what I heard she could have enough to warrant her claim of Indian ancestry or a mere pittance that would not.

 

[Estebonrober]

I remember my deporable friends and I, straight off the loss of McCain, wishing fervently that our new president "make it through his term(s)." He did. Now, a cynical man would say that either a) we were behind the times or b) that is the security apparatus working. And indeed, a certain degree of cynicism is warranted. But I'm guessing, for the most part, the country is different than the 1960s. And screw you fossils who aren't.

I'm always surprised and relieved that more people don't take shots at presidents (even this one). I felt the same exact way in 08'. Then 4 years later I voted for Obama, because by that point the Republican party had completely doubled down on racist fear mongering and government sabotage.

 

[caketastydelish]

Y'all are totally missing the point. Whether Trump was right to dodge the draft or not is immaterial.

What matters is that he has lied about how he stayed out of the draft, and intimated if not flat out said he would have bravely gone and served if called. He claimed he got a high draft number. That is a lie. A lie he has told to cover up his past, which he likely believes shows evidence that he is a coward, who talks tough about the military but was not willing to serve if called.

This (I'm talking him, not you) is coming from the same person who criticizes American soldiers who actually HAVE served, just for being captured "I like soldiers who don't get captured."

Therefore, any claims he has about how he would have been proud to serve and how he dodged the draft blah blah blah is pathetic.

If you haven't served yourself, and you have the audacity to criticize those who have for not being good enough, any of your other opinion of our military or your 'service' to it is irrelevant to me.

 

[Estebonrober]

From what I heard she could have enough to warrant her claim of Indian ancestry or a mere pittance that would not.

No one cares, I like Warren a lot but replying to this was almost as stupid as every time Trump tweets. It was pointless and only hurt herself.

 

[Berzerker]

No one cares but the people who care, I saw a few Cherokee who cared.

 

[Phrossack]

I'm always surprised and relieved that more people don't take shots at presidents (even this one). I felt the same exact way in 08'. Then 4 years later I voted for Obama, because by that point the Republican party had completely doubled down on racist fear mongering and government sabotage.

I imagine security's good. They've had many years to practice spotting potential shooting positions in advance, so getting into a spot for direct fire is difficult.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Secession, no. But it's easy to imagine groups of disgruntled Republican voters, egged on by cries of "stolen election" and "taking our guns", protesting the vote with attacks on government facilities and maybe even areas known for large Democratic voter populations.

Yeah, I can definitely see that coming. One reason I balked on the talk of secession is that I think the most wild eyed crazy right wingers are probably in the Democrat controlled states. Over in the dung heaps of the deep south and lower midwest they might cry the blues about how the RINOs are letting them down by not dragging down the entire country to their level, but anyone who lives in a place where the ideas of Democrats are proving how well they really work and still talks the Alex Jones mania talk is hopeless, and hopeless breeds desperate. I'd say that places like the mountain counties in California or upstate New York are where things will really get hot. Maybe in the hill country of western Virginia.

 

[Zkribbler]

It was pointless and only hurt herself.

She blundering into believing Trump would keep his promise to donate $1 million to the charity of her choice.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

On Warren and her "native American ancestry":

Some of our European posters might not be aware of the typical USian lack of awareness of 'heritage.' I consider myself to be fairly typical in this regard, and I call myself 'Scottish.' My grandparents, on my mother's side, immigrated from Scotland. My grandparents on my father's side, for all I know, immigrated from another planet, or may have been descended via uncounted generations of evolution from amoebas that swam in the ancient precursors of the Great Lakes, or could have arrived from anywhere in Europe on the same boat as my other grandparents...I frankly have no idea and could not care less.

So when someone says that they heard from their parents that they "have a Native American princess in their family tree," or that they are "descended from an obscure branch of the royal family of <European country of choice>" or whatever other daffy ideas kids in the US might get from some offhanded comment their parents might have made, I blow it off. No one here cares enough, or has ever cared enough, about that stuff to be particularly accurate about it...unless of course you are a right wing dingbat president with no moral compass and a penchant for lying faster than most people can talk who just wants to throw attention elsewhere.

Whenever anyone says anything about ancestry I tell them that several generations of my ancestors were hung for pirates and horse thieves by people they may have descended from, and we should investigate further whether there is any connection we should be taking action on. Usually the entire topic is dropped hurriedly.