2020 US Election (Part One)

[Berzerker]

So you want to blame Obama for the Syrian Civil War that erupted during the Arab Spring of 2011? Sure the US was a participant along with Russia, Iran, Israel, Turkey, the Kurds, Iraq, et al and, lest we forget, Mr. "I like killing my people" Assad himself. The death and destruction in Syria is the product of not only many years of ME tension, but of lots of outside interference all trying to force an outcome. Oh, and since you do want to to attribute personal blame around, who was the guy who took us full force into the this current round of ME quagmire by invading Iraq? It is interesting that you both lay the decades old problems of hate and misrule in the Middle East at the feet of Obama as if he was the start of the death and killing there.
The US intervention into Libya in 2011 was certainly a diplomatic misstep and failure. It sparked a nasty civil war in 2012 that is still a mess. Regime change failed to bring an improved situation. But you cannot attribute 6 years of failure by the Libyans to Obama. How many people died during the US intervention in Libya?

Do we get to blame Trump for all the deaths in Yemen because he sold the Saudis the means to carry out the killings? With your logic it would seem so.

Russia, Iran, Iraq and the Kurds were not trying to overthrow the Syrian regime - they were late entries into the conflict. Obama, the Saudis, Qatar and Turkey started the 'civil war' by training and arming terrorists. I never blamed Bush for invading Iraq? Are you kidding!?!?! Nobody here is defending voting for Bush so he's not relevant to a lesser evil debate but Democrats who voted for Obama and Clinton are looking down their noses at Trump and his voters. And if you'll notice I didn't blame Obama for Iraq. We cant blame all the deaths in Yemen on Trump, he inherited that mess from Obama just as Obama inherited Iraq from Bush.

Jimmy Dore ran a video clip of a female CNN 'journalist' reporting on an alleged sarin gas attack launched by Assad's forces. She shoved her face into a scarf that supposedly had residue from the attack. Now is that credible? A CNN journalist shows us a sarin laced piece of cloth and sticks her face into and declares, yeah, I smell something strange. We were sold a bill of goods on Syria.

 

[Birdjaguar]

Russia, Iran, Iraq and the Kurds were not trying to overthrow the Syrian regime - they were late entries into the conflict. Obama, the Saudis, Qatar and Turkey started the 'civil war' by training and arming terrorists...

The Arab spring began in Syria in the Spring of 2011.

1. March - Aug 2011 civil up rising Arab Spring
2. Insurgency against Assad Sept 2011 - April 2012
3. UN Ceasefire and escalation of conflict May 2012 - Dec 2013
4. Rise of the Islamists Jan - Sept 2014
5. US led Intervention Sept 2014 - Sept 2015
6. Russian Intervention Sept 2015 - March 2016
etc.
Once the insurgency continued and the Islamists got started, Syria became a proxy war among a host of nations. Every one of them had their own goals and strategies.[/QUOTE]

 

[Estebonrober]

The Arab spring began in Syria in the Spring of 2011.

1. March - Aug 2011 civil up rising Arab Spring
2. Insurgency against Assad Sept 2011 - April 2012
3. UN Ceasefire and escalation of conflict May 2012 - Dec 2013
4. Rise of the Islamists Jan - Sept 2014
5. US led Intervention Sept 2014 - Sept 2015
6. Russian Intervention Sept 2015 - March 2016
etc.
Once the insurgency continued and the Islamists got started, Syria became a proxy war among a host of nations. Every one of them had their own goals and strategies.

How dare you try to break into Berserker's narrative that Obama is responsible for millions of dead! How dare you!

Obama was the most reluctant to get involved with anything until Trump came to power. Obama had the wisdom not to run his mouth or dismantle the State Dept. I'd still take a third term of Obama over this madness.

 

[Kyriakos]

How dare you try to break into Berserker's narrative that Obama is responsible for millions of dead! How dare you!

Obama was the most reluctant to get involved with anything until Trump came to power. Obama had the wisdom not to run his mouth or dismantle the State Dept. I'd still take a third term of Obama over this madness.

It isn't about Berserker, though. Obama did get involved in Libya and Syria, and his actions directly led to the chaos. What is there to deny in this?
Maybe Obama didn't want to get involved, but he got pressured to do so, and gave in. No one is saying he created as much chaos and brought about as many deaths as W. Bush.

 

[Gorbles]

It isn't about Berserker, though. Obama did get involved in Libya and Syria, and his actions directly led to the chaos. What is there to deny in this?
Maybe Obama didn't want to get involved, but he got pressured to do so, and gave in. No one is saying he created as much chaos and brought about as many deaths as W. Bush.

This set of claims started with Berzerker here, where they said:

I dont know how Democrats can complain about Trump after Obama destroyed Libya and Syria

So the whole point of trying to demonise Obama actually came out of a defense of Trump, which is silly, because they can both be responsible for bad things. This morphed into Berzerker continually trying to play up the consequences of Obama's actions to justify the initial false equivalence.

Obama is absolutely responsible for a variety of things. But that doesn't mean people can't complain about Trump, nor that people can't point out that even considering the things Obama did sign off on, his record may not be as bad as other Presidents. Ideally, "no bad things" is the goal, but considering how impossible that scenario is, people can only vote for what they see the "best" as. Even if it's the best of a set of poor circumstances.

 

[Sommerswerd]

Trump said some of the Mexicans coming across the border are rapists

Not true?

No Mexicans are bringing drugs in either?

This is textbook goalpost moving. You said:

Prove me wrong, quote Trump calling neo-Nazis fine people and Mexicans rapists.

In response @Lemon Merchant proved you wrong by providing you with a direct quote of Trump calling Mexicans rapists. So then you respond by essentially saying "Well he only called some Mexicans rapists, and anyway they are rapists so he wasn't lying." So you admit he called Mexicans rapists but then try to pretend like that isn't exactly what you tried to deny even happened. Total goalpost switch. You asked to be proven wrong by a quote. You were proven wrong by a quote. End of story. Just admit you were wrong and move on.

 

[Lexicus]

Just admit you were wrong and move on.

Berzerker has been denying that Trump said this for years, I somehow doubt he is going to stop denying it now

 

[Cloud_Strife]

Berzerker also still thinks the charlottesville rally wasn't full of neo-nazis and white supremacist, but unfortunately for him reality does not comport with said belief.

 

[El_Machinae]

Trump didn't say that some Mexicans crossing the borders were rapists. He was actually saying something different. The fact that 'some Mexicans are rapists' is incidental to the actual message.

He's using the same trope that he's currently using now regarding the lottery immigration system.

"Mexico is sending ... their rapists", is what he's saying. Just like he's claiming that other countries 'are sending their murderers'.

It's much more insidious, a reasonable portion of the base cannot accurately describe the immigration system after a government employee explained it to them.

It just want to remind you of that, Trump is a government employee whose ability to accurately type official government documents would cause anyone else to be fired

 

[Sommerswerd]

Of course it's her fault. She lost. With lowest voter turnout in decades.

Point of Order... There are only two POTUS elections in US history where the candidate received more votes than Hillary's 65,853,514 votes. They are, in order:

Obama 2008 - 69,498,516 votes
Obama 2012 - 65,915,795 votes

The reason Hillary lost wasn't as simple as she sucked and failed to get sufficient turnout... she did do those things but that's not the only or main reason she lost. She got the most votes by a wide margin afterall. She also lost because the electoral college system favors Republicans structurally. So Democrats have to get way more votes to actually win than a Republican, while Republicans can consistently win while receiving less votes.

Also, the voter turnout in 2016 was 55.7%, which was up from 2012 at 54.9%... so you're flat out incorrect that Hillary had "lowest voter turnout in decades". Just sayin'

 

[rah]

I just read an interesting article in the paper at lunch.
Chicago Tribune
https://www.chicagotribune.com/colu...0190814-cgtga235k5ei7jpa32btbbuh2m-story.html
Normally a right leaning newspaper but in Chicago so the left is not shut out.

To summarize it says that if the Republicans are smart they should work to kill the electoral college now before Texas turns and makes it almost impossible for them to ever win the white house again. If they wait to long the Democrats will stop whining about the EC since it will benefit them.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I dunno, we've been saying demographic changes would catch up to the Republicans for years now and it hasn't. Of course they've systematically tilted the election process in their favor for just as long but still.

 

[rah]

Texas alone would be a game changer. A reliable Florida would also.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

Texas alone would be a game changer. A reliable Florida would also.

Well look at the GOP response to those changes. Texas is sitting on their hands when it comes to the census in hopes they can suppress counts enough (and particularly for undocumented immigrants) to keep from having to create new Democratic districts. They're also among the worst offenders of gerrymandering as well. And in Florida it's not much better as the legislature just effectively disenfranchised all of the ex-felons (read: people of color) who were supposed to have gotten their votes back after a referendum. Pretty sure both states are systematically shutting down voting centers in areas leaning blue and I wouldn't be surprised if they're purging voter rolls as well.

Sure these strategies may have limits that they're about to reach but they will come up with new voter suppression/gerrymandering strategies, backed up by courts they've stacked. I mean hell, they've already gotten the voting rights act gutted and that's just at the federal level.

So Democrats have to get way more votes to actually win than a Republican, while Republicans can consistently win while receiving less votes.

This problem is even worse in the House of Representatives. I don't want to dig up the numbers yet again but the Republicans got way more seats for far fewer votes in 2010 relative to what the Democrats got last year for far more votes.

 

[Lexicus]

Can someone give me a good reason to think the 2020 election will be remotely fair (ie, free of Republican cheating)?

 

[rah]

That doesn't mean it can't be won. Which, in the long term, is the only way to fix it, short of armed revolution.

 

[El_Machinae]

Can someone give me a good reason to think the 2020 election will be remotely fair (ie, free of Republican cheating)?

I don't know if the cheating will be the game-changer. But if Trump doesn't win in 2020, you're going to see his base lit up with regards to 'millions of illegal voters'.

 

[rah]

Since they did that when he won in 2016, I would say that would not be a surprise to anyone.

 

[Lexicus]

That doesn't mean it can't be won. Which, in the long term, is the only way to fix it, short of armed revolution.

What if it actually does mean that? You realize how goddamn dumb it sounds to say "well sure the Republicans are cheating but we need to just pretend they aren't and win anyway" right?

I don't know if the cheating will be the game-changer. But if Trump doesn't win in 2020, you're going to see his base lit up with regards to 'millions of illegal voters'.

How would we know if he won due to cheating?

 

[hobbsyoyo]

I don't know if the cheating will be the game-changer. But if Trump doesn't win in 2020, you're going to see his base lit up with regards to 'millions of illegal voters'.

I would not at all be surprised if Trump moves to invalidate the results if he personally loses. We've said that before and it didn't happen but in the past he either wasn't on the ballot himself (2018) or he won and still complained vociferously about the results (2016) and tried to set up a commission to essentially prove that he had been cheated of an even grander victory. I think he if he outright loses and subsequently is exposed to the threat of criminal charges, he'll make an attempt to stay in office. Lisa Murkowski will express more 'grave concern', Schumaker and Pelosi will make truly biting statements, then they'll let it happen anyways.