2020 US Election (Part Two)

[Timsup2nothin]

Agreed to? Or proposed? Don't news organizations conduct the debates?

Rogan suggested he could host one on his radio program and Trump accepted.

 

[Berzerker]

Agreed to? Or proposed? Don't news organizations conduct the debates?

Not sure if someone else asked Rogan if he was interested or if he brought it up himself

I like the suggested lengthy format, that would give Rogan time to get past the practiced responses

The league of women voters hosted debates when I was a young man but I think the 2 parties 'fired' them.

edit: the organization grew tired of the 2 parties demands on control, called debates a fraud

 

[amadeus]

He’s still the electrician from NewsRadio to me.

 

[Patine]

Pretty much, even the Communists here are offering solutions. May not agree with what they're saying but at least it's something and I can respect that.

My solutions tend more towards what I think is achievable with the resources available and what you can actually do and it's going to take several decades.

I did offer a solution. Several times. Would you, @Lexicus, and @Gori the Grey either stop pretending I've offered absolutely nothing, like you are, or just admit the request made of me for a solution had hidden and unstated qualifiers that your judging my response on and has asked in bad faith. But stop being so damned smug and pretentious when you're effectively to claim I haven't done something I have. And, even if I hadn't offered a solution (which I have), that doesn't invalidate my complaints and grievances with the established way of things, and trying to say it does it is a disgusting farce and deflection tactic. And, finally, none of you have offered a solution - because fully and completely supporting Biden as though that IS the solution is completely braindead and utterly lacking comprehension of the situation - but certainly not a solution.

 

[Gori the Grey]

Here's your solution:

Make a huge grassroots, political movement and vote both major, failed, criminal, sellout, and treasonous parties out of power in the SAME election.

And I'll refer you to this expert for an explanation of why it's not a solution:

But, alas, the rigged American political machine that says only one of each Duopoly party is allowed to run in each General Election and be allowed a chance of winning

 

[Zardnaar]

Here's your solution:


And I'll refer you to this expert for an explanation of why it's not a solution:

You are good lol.

 

[Patine]

Here's your solution:


And I'll refer you to this expert for an explanation of why it's not a solution:

The rigged electoral system, however, depends firmly on everyone succumbing to it as they always do, with the fatalist sense that if they don't vote for a candidate ALLOWED to win, their wasting their vote and betraying their principals - the very motto @Zardinar keeps chanting (how much is the American FEC paying you to constantly spew their propaganda from New Zealand, by the way?), and the current crop of Third Parties are far too fractious and institutionally suppressed, underfunded, and starved for media coverage to be a threat. What I'm talking about is something akin to the "clean hands," electoral revolt in Italy in the '90's, where that country's corrupt and rigged electoral system and complacent and criminal establishment parties were completely caught off guard by a large chunk of the voting electorate actually organized around caring about their nation - not one long-entrenched political party or another.

 

[Zardnaar]

The rigged electoral system, however, depends firmly on everyone succumbing to it as they always do, with the fatalist sense that if they don't vote for a candidate ALLOWED to win, their wasting their vote and betraying their principals - the very motto @Zardinar keeps chanting (how much is the American FEC paying you to constantly spew their propaganda from New Zealand, by the way?), and the current crop of Third Parties are far too fractious and institutionally suppressed, underfunded, and starved for media coverage to be a threat. What I'm talking about is something akin to the "clean hands," electoral revolt in Italy in the '90's, where that country's corrupt and rigged electoral system and complacent and criminal establishment parties were completely caught off guard by a large chunk of the voting electorate actually organized around caring about their nation - not one long-entrenched political party or another.

Wish I did get paid.

Your desires are irrelevant. Trump has 40% of the Electorate locked in.

Any vote splitting benefits him.

Rant and rave as much as you like but your choice is Trump or Biden.

 

[Berzerker]

Here's your solution:

And I'll refer you to this expert for an explanation of why it's not a solution:

if voting against the establishment isn't a solution, what is? Actually Republicans did that in 2016, of the major candidates Trump (Or Paul) was the most unorthodox. Democrats responded with the epitome of orthodoxy, Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden. Maybe it will take a 'Republican' to lead a populist revolution given the left's PC baggage.

 

[Patine]

Wish I did get paid.

Your desires are irrelevant. Trump has 40% of the Electorate locked in.

Any vote splitting benefits him.

Rant and rave as much as you like but your choice is Trump or Biden.

I take it you're a Calvinist or a Norse/Teutonic Heathen, judging by your complete and utter fatalism. People like you are impediments to progress and advancements, and toadies and assets to tyrants, whether hard tyrants, or the soft tyrants in the U.S. and several other First World Nations. In other words, your contributions are pretty much useless, because you are part of the problem, and can NOT POSSIBLY be part of the solution.

 

[Gori the Grey]

if voting against the establishment isn't a solution

Voting for a third-party candidate that the Duopoly won't allow to contend is the solution that I said isn't--or more precisely, that Patine said isn't.

 

[Zardnaar]

I take it you're a Calvinist or a Norse/Teutonic Heathen, judging by your complete and utter fatalism. People like you are impediments to progress and advancements, and toadies and assets to tyrants, whether hard tyrants, or the soft tyrants in the U.S. and several other First World Nations. In other words, your contributions are pretty much useless, because you are part of the problem, and can NOT POSSIBLY be part of the solution.

Agnostic.

Generally I believe in things like progressive taxation and economic social democracy.

I don't believe in some really expensive things like a UBI due to opportunity cost.

And a lot of social issues don't really matter in the grand scheme of things. They don't cost money.

Essentially if people are doing ok they're not going to look at extremism or care to much about progressive social policy.

 

[hobbsyoyo]

See above. The president cannot, by definition, be a domestic enemy unless they are removed from office by Congress or have reached the end if their term and refuses to leave office. The military on its own has no authority to decide who is or is not a domestic enemy.

I agree the military won't take sides in this but it's worth pointing out that they already have picked domestic enemies such as the Bonus Army (someone else referenced it first!) and when they were deployed to violently break strikes. They came very, very close to it when they took part in riot suppression back in April in DC. Even after they stood down, they continued deploying surveillance planes and other assets over/near protests which is an awful like the thing you'd do to monitor a foreign incursion.

And by your own reckoning, if he clearly loses but decides to stay in office then he's crossed that line where they don't have to decide what he is. I think this is a somewhat likely outcome but I am with you and @Sommerswerd that the military won't do anything.

And I don't really want them to either, I don't want to live in a country where the military has to step in. It's a lose-lose situation Trump is getting ready to put us in.

We're closer to a tipping point than a lot of people think. I maintain that if Bernie had just looked like Gavin Newsom, he would have Obama'd Hillary.

True story

 

[Patine]

Voting for a third-party candidate that the Duopoly won't allow to contend is the solution that I said isn't--or more precisely, that Patine said isn't.

You just don't get it, do you? You're trapped firmly in the groove of the inescapable PR and soft tyranny of American politics where you believe that bootlicking and endorsing the "lesser of two evils," (NEVER a good candidate who will bring true and needed reform and change without having to have their arm twists by things becoming untenable first before they'll allow a few crumbs to fall from their table - but only after the plutocrats who really run the country have feasted) - and you're such beaten down dogs, you've come to believe, in a sniveling sort of way, you don't even deserve a worthwhile candidate who offers any semblance of reform or integrity, only what humbly accepting what crooks, liars, and murderers the two main parties decide are electable. Is this the "Land of the Free," or even a country where elections really change anything beneath the superficial surface or offer voters any true change? How long will you and other Americans suffer being governed by a political establishment that doesn't care about you, but demands your full and complete support to one arbitrary side or another - but both criminal and treasonous cartels? Do you really think that Thomas Jefferson, or Abraham Lincoln, or Franklin D. Roosevelt would REALLY endorse EITHER of the two major party losers running right now?

 

[Takhisis]

Is it really that hard for you to type out one sentence?

well actually

 

[Gori the Grey]

NEVER a good candidate

Who is that candidate, Patine? Whom should I support? You tell me--correctly, I think--that the Duopoly won't let such a candidate emerge.

Fun fact: Sniveling Bootlickers was the name of the Motley Crue cover band I played in in college.

 

[Commodore]

I agree the military won't take sides in this but it's worth pointing out that they already have picked domestic enemies such as the Bonus Army (someone else referenced it first!) and when they were deployed to violently break strikes. They came very, very close to it when they took part in riot suppression back in April in DC. Even after they stood down, they continued deploying surveillance planes and other assets over/near protests which is an awful like the thing you'd do to monitor a foreign incursion

I don't think the military decided to do those things on their own though. The military doesn't move until the politicians tell them to. That's the point I was making. The military's role is to follow the orders of our civilian authorities, not to take independent action. So even if officers disagree personally with what the politicians might order them to do, they have to do it and they will do it until they are given new orders or the order given is determined to be unlawful by the appropriate civilian authorities.

And by your own reckoning, if he clearly loses but decides to stay in office then he's crossed that line where they don't have to decide what he is. I think this is a somewhat likely outcome but I am with you and @Sommerswerd that the military won't do anything

Correct. They won't do anything unless they are ordered to by the appropriate authority, which would likely be the Speaker of The House in the event of a rogue president since the VP would likely lose their office as well. Even then, it would likely be a very quiet operation to remove him so as not to cause panic among the population and to keep up appearances of a peaceful transition of power. So we definitely wouldn't see anything dramatic like tanks surrounding the White House or DC being put under martial law.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I don't think the military decided to do those things on their own though. The military doesn't move until the politicians tell them to. That's the point I was making. The military's role is to follow the orders of our civilian authorities, not to take independent action. So even if officers disagree personally with what the politicians might order them to do, they have to do it and they will do it until they are given new orders or the order given is determined to be unlawful by the appropriate civilian authorities.

Serving in the military actually carries the responsibility of recognizing unlawful orders. They should not need to be informed by any civilian authorities.

 

[Commodore]

Serving in the military actually carries the responsibility of recognizing unlawful orders. They should not need to be informed by any civilian authorities.

It's not really that simple though. Obviously if the president told the military to gun down any protestors, that would clearly be an unlawful order that could be disobeyed immediately. If he orders them to begin operations against a "domestic terror group" however, the lawfulness of such an order starts to get a little murky. And when orders are a little murky, the standing policy if the military has always been to execute the order and then question it later.

 

[Zardnaar]

It's not really that simple though. Obviously if the president told the military to gun down any protestors, that would clearly be an unlawful order that could be disobeyed immediately. If he orders them to begin operations against a "domestic terror group" however, the lawfulness of such an order starts to get a little murky. And when orders are a little murky, the standing policy if the military has always been to execute the order and then question it later.

Wouldn't domestic terror group fall under the FBI?