2020 US Election (Part Two)

[Berzerker]

What have the scientists been telling Biden about climate change and the increased fracking under Obama?

 

[Ajidica]

The Hunter Biden $$$ with 50% going to dad kickback thing can't be brought up if foreign policy isn't a debate subject.

You referring to the New York Post story that is reliant on some incredibly dubious sourcing, sourcing they have not provided to other news agencies, and came through Rudy Giuliani who has already been criticized for serving as a Russian disinfo channel?
Because the Senate investigation found nothing.

Rush Limbaugh was talking about it today.

Ah yes, the mark of quality.

 

[Edmund Ironside]

I'm surprised Trump wants to discuss foreign policy.
Isn't he all about America first, screw everyone else.

I guess they could talk about how Trump withheld aid from Ukraine, so as to try and 'persuade' them to investigate Joe & Hunter Biden.

Or they could discuss what Trump said about Nelson Mandela & South Africa, which has so many expletives I dare not quote it on here! Or discuss all the other countries he has said disparaging things about, mostly in Africa or Latin America.

Or they could discuss how Trump has some of the worst approval ratings for a US president from citizens of foreign countries ever.

So many things to discuss, but so little time!

 

[Sommerswerd]

538 currently has Biden up by 1 in Georgia...

If Biden wins Georgia they're calling it election night.

 

[Edmund Ironside]

What have the scientists been telling Biden about climate change and the increased fracking under Obama?

Who occupies the White House for the next four years could play a critical role in the fight against dangerous climate change, experts say. Matt McGrath weighs the likely environmental consequences of the US election.

Scientists studying climate change say that the re-election of Donald Trump could make it "impossible" to keep global temperatures in check.


https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-54395534

This is a good article on climate change, and Trump & Biden's position on it.
The whole article is worth a read. But in the spoiler I have put some of the most relevant points IMO.

Spoiler :

Who occupies the White House for the next four years could play a critical role in the fight against dangerous climate change, experts say. Matt McGrath weighs the likely environmental consequences of the US election.

Scientists studying climate change say that the re-election of Donald Trump could make it "impossible" to keep global temperatures in check.

They're worried another four years of Trump would "lock in" the use of fossil fuels for decades to come - securing and enhancing the infrastructure for oil and gas production rather than phasing them out as environmentalists want.

Joe Biden's climate plan, the scientists argue, would give the world a fighting chance.

In addition to withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement - the international pact designed to avoid dangerous warming of the Earth - President Trump's team has worked hard to remove what they see as obstacles to efficient energy production.

Over the past three years, researchers at Columbia University in New York have tracked more than 160 significant rollbacks of environmental regulations. These cover everything from car fuel standards, to methane emissions, to light bulbs.

This bonfire of red tape has occurred at the same time that the US is reeling from several years' worth of severe wildfires in western states. Many scientists have linked these fires to climate change.

What is Trump's position on climate change?
"Trump believes that regulations are all cost and no benefit," says Prof Michael Gerrard from Columbia University in New York.

"He denies that there really is such a thing as anthropogenic climate change, or at least that it is bad. He believes that if you cut back on regulations of all kinds, not just environmental, but also occupational and labour and everything else, it'll create more jobs."


Critics say the rollbacks on environmental regulations are part of an agenda to remove any reference to climate change across the federal government.

"The Trump administration has done everything they can to deny the science and denigrate scientists," says Gina McCarthy, the former head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and now the president of the NRDC Action Fund.

"They have really done everything humanly possible to try to convince people that what they see and feel and taste just isn't happening in front of them."


What happens if Trump is re-elected?
As well as confirming America's departure from the Paris deal, a win for Trump will likely see further efforts to step up fossil fuel production. This could have serious consequences for global temperatures.

Two years ago, a scientific review of the target concluded that keeping the temperature rise under this threshold would make a huge difference to people and to nature, compared to letting them increase by 2C (which previously regarded as this threshold for many years).

"If Trump is re-elected, I think it goes into the realm of physical impossibility," says Prof Gerrard.

"We'd have to wait another four years for another election to try to rectify that. But by then, a lot more fossil fuel infrastructure will have been locked in and a lot more greenhouse gases will have gone into the atmosphere. So, it would be very bad news for the climate indeed."

How does Biden differ from Trump?
Joe Biden says that his plan for climate change would see the US energy sector go carbon-free by 2035. This would allow the country to become a net zero emitter by 2050.

Achieving net zero means that any carbon emitted by industry, transport or other sources is balanced out by removing an equivalent amount from the atmosphere, through, for example, planting forests.

Mr Biden has ambitious ideas to revolutionise transport in the US using electric vehicles and trains. He also wants to build 1.5 million sustainable homes and housing units.

His plan would not just benefit the US, say supporters, it would help keep global temperatures down.

"This is the first election ever that really may determine whether we can prevent runaway climate change," says Paul Bledsoe.

"Joe Biden is proposing that the US adopt climate change tariffs on nations who do not reduce their emissions. Biden's international climate plan, if anything, is even more ambitious than his domestic plan. So the contrast could not be starker."

 

[Edmund Ironside]

I've also heard rumors that they are going to mute Trump whenever they want.

I believe both Biden & Trump will be muted for the opening 2 minute sections of each topic. After that it will be a free for all, and will probably descend into mud slinging again.

The Hunter Biden $$$ with 50% going to dad kickback thing can't be brought up if foreign policy isn't a debate subject.

That wont stop Trump, he managed to fit Hunter into the first debate regardless of whether it was warranted!

 

[Kaitzilla]

The moderator chooses the topics.

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-n...10-16-2020/h_59c2acc5ded072efc84386de2085b7be

2:45 p.m. ET, October 16, 2020
These will be the topics for the last presidential debate

From CNN's Elizabeth Hartfield

The Commission on Presidential Debates has released the topics for the final presidential debate that will take place next Thursday in Nashville, Tennessee.

The six topics are:

• "Fighting COVID-19"
• "American Families"
• "Race in America"
• "Climate Change"
• "National Security"
• "Leadership"

As was also the case with the first debate, the topics list is subject to change based on news.

The debate will start at 9:00 p.m. ET and run for 90 minutes without commercial breaks. NBC journalist Kristen Welker will be the moderator.

I think the moderator chooses the specific questions based on the topics.

 

[Kyriakos]

What kind of a name is Hunter?
Why not something normal, like Wolf, Playstation2 or King Of Ink Land King Body Art The Extreme Ink-Ite?

 

[Phrossack]

Who occupies the White House for the next four years could play a critical role in the fight against dangerous climate change, experts say. Matt McGrath weighs the likely environmental consequences of the US election.

Scientists studying climate change say that the re-election of Donald Trump could make it "impossible" to keep global temperatures in check.


https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-54395534

This is a good article on climate change, and Trump & Biden's position on it.
The whole article is worth a read. But in the spoiler I have put some of the most relevant points IMO.

Spoiler :

Who occupies the White House for the next four years could play a critical role in the fight against dangerous climate change, experts say. Matt McGrath weighs the likely environmental consequences of the US election.

Scientists studying climate change say that the re-election of Donald Trump could make it "impossible" to keep global temperatures in check.

They're worried another four years of Trump would "lock in" the use of fossil fuels for decades to come - securing and enhancing the infrastructure for oil and gas production rather than phasing them out as environmentalists want.

Joe Biden's climate plan, the scientists argue, would give the world a fighting chance.

In addition to withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement - the international pact designed to avoid dangerous warming of the Earth - President Trump's team has worked hard to remove what they see as obstacles to efficient energy production.

Over the past three years, researchers at Columbia University in New York have tracked more than 160 significant rollbacks of environmental regulations. These cover everything from car fuel standards, to methane emissions, to light bulbs.

This bonfire of red tape has occurred at the same time that the US is reeling from several years' worth of severe wildfires in western states. Many scientists have linked these fires to climate change.

What is Trump's position on climate change?
"Trump believes that regulations are all cost and no benefit," says Prof Michael Gerrard from Columbia University in New York.

"He denies that there really is such a thing as anthropogenic climate change, or at least that it is bad. He believes that if you cut back on regulations of all kinds, not just environmental, but also occupational and labour and everything else, it'll create more jobs."


Critics say the rollbacks on environmental regulations are part of an agenda to remove any reference to climate change across the federal government.

"The Trump administration has done everything they can to deny the science and denigrate scientists," says Gina McCarthy, the former head of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and now the president of the NRDC Action Fund.

"They have really done everything humanly possible to try to convince people that what they see and feel and taste just isn't happening in front of them."


What happens if Trump is re-elected?
As well as confirming America's departure from the Paris deal, a win for Trump will likely see further efforts to step up fossil fuel production. This could have serious consequences for global temperatures.

Two years ago, a scientific review of the target concluded that keeping the temperature rise under this threshold would make a huge difference to people and to nature, compared to letting them increase by 2C (which previously regarded as this threshold for many years).

"If Trump is re-elected, I think it goes into the realm of physical impossibility," says Prof Gerrard.

"We'd have to wait another four years for another election to try to rectify that. But by then, a lot more fossil fuel infrastructure will have been locked in and a lot more greenhouse gases will have gone into the atmosphere. So, it would be very bad news for the climate indeed."

How does Biden differ from Trump?
Joe Biden says that his plan for climate change would see the US energy sector go carbon-free by 2035. This would allow the country to become a net zero emitter by 2050.

Achieving net zero means that any carbon emitted by industry, transport or other sources is balanced out by removing an equivalent amount from the atmosphere, through, for example, planting forests.

Mr Biden has ambitious ideas to revolutionise transport in the US using electric vehicles and trains. He also wants to build 1.5 million sustainable homes and housing units.

His plan would not just benefit the US, say supporters, it would help keep global temperatures down.

"This is the first election ever that really may determine whether we can prevent runaway climate change," says Paul Bledsoe.

"Joe Biden is proposing that the US adopt climate change tariffs on nations who do not reduce their emissions. Biden's international climate plan, if anything, is even more ambitious than his domestic plan. So the contrast could not be starker."

I mean...it's already impossible to keep change below 1.5C. Probably impossible to keep it below 2. I'd bet we'll have 3 or 4+ by century's end, minimum. Civilization will seamlessly transition from "it's not too late, so why worry?" to "it's too late, live fast and die young." Then it will die, save for a few pockets of the ultra-rich and those who amuse them.

 

[Gorbles]

The Hunter Biden $$$ with 50% going to dad kickback thing can't be brought up if foreign policy isn't a debate subject.

Rush Limbaugh was talking about it today.

I know Ajidica has already responded, but I just want to put reply with an obligatory "lmao".

 

[Zardnaar]

Two weeks. Two weeks!!!!!

Outsider looking in getting that "we've lost" vibe from the GoP.

 

[Hrothbern]

Two weeks. Two weeks!!!!!

Outsider looking in getting that "we've lost" vibe from the GoP.

I am already more interested in the Senate seat count, how strong the trifecta could be with enough safety surplus in the Senate majority and from there in what the Dems will do as priorities in the first two years.

Every vote counts in those contested Senate seat states.

538 chances:
POTUS Biden 88%
Senate Dems 74%
House Dems 95%

 

[Drakle]

I think Trump is pretty safely doomed. 538 has really fat tails in terms of probability. The GOP has no real shot at retaking the house, let alone 5%. They are barely prepared to take back the immediate frontier of battleground Democrats, types like Utah4, OK5 and ME2. And they have a bunch of their own battleground Republicans at risk. Even if there is a nationwide polling error in their favour (in 2016 it was only about a percentage more favourable to Clinton, the issue was particular state level polls) they don't really have the candidates in a position to win the median seat. That is why the economist gives Republicans less than 1% chance to win the House.

But yeah it comes down to the Senate. If Democrats don't take the Senate, than gg democracy. There won't be any real stimulus, and Mitch and the Senate Republicans would see the economy burn, just to lower President Biden's approvals. If the Democrats take the Senate, but it rests on Manchin and he doesn't go along, then it is almost as bad. Democrats might not have another shot at Senate control for a decade. That is the real win/loss threshold.

And Democrats even in a good year in 2018, got stung by the Senate. It was a tough map, but they won limited ground in red territory, and they lost Florida which was a real blow.

 

[Hrothbern]

I think Trump is pretty safely doomed. 538 has really fat tails in terms of probability. The GOP has no real shot at retaking the house, let alone 5%. They are barely prepared to take back the immediate frontier of battleground Democrats, types like Utah4, OK5 and ME2. And they have a bunch of their own battleground Republicans at risk. Even if there is a nationwide polling error in their favour, they don't really have the candidates in a position to win the median seat. That is why the economist gives Republicans less than 1% chance to win the House.

But yeah it comes down to the Senate. If Democrats don't take the Senate, than gg democracy. There won't be any real stimulus, and Mitch and the Senate Republicans would see the economy burn, just to lower President Biden's approvals. If the Democrats take the Senate, but it rests on Manchin and he doesn't go along, then it is almost as bad. Democrats might not have another shot at Senate control for a decade. That is the real win/loss threshold.

And Democrats even in a good year in 2018, got stung by the Senate. It was a tough map, but they won limited ground in red territory, and they lost Florida which was a real blow.

Would Senator Manchin be against adding Senators from the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico ?

 

[Yeekim]

Two weeks. Two weeks!!!!!

Outsider looking in getting that "we've lost" vibe from the GoP.

Fingers crossed...

 

[Drakle]

Would Senator Manchin be against adding Senators from the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico ?

He might be against removing the filibuster, which is a vital step to doing it. Needing 60 votes to add those states or to do anything, is easy for Republicans to block. Democrats are unlikely to get more than one or two GOP defections on anything, let alone something that clearly reduces the pro-GOP bias of the Senate.

 

[Samson]

Would Senator Manchin be against adding Senators from the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico ?

What I do not get is how these are decided. I thought that the status of DC is in the constitution, and Puerto Rico have declined statehood in multiple referenda.

 

[Hrothbern]

What I do not get is how these are decided. I thought that the status of DC is in the constitution, and Puerto Rico have declined statehood in multiple referenda.

IDK what hurdles are all to be taken to get one or both changes done.
For District Columbia it feels for me as undemocratic and an outdated remnant.

 

[KaibaCorp]

Right, going through the Constitutional process to remove a criminal executive is a refusal of peacefully transferring power. Okay.

“Criminal” according to...?

How? Biden's foreign policy is standard Atlanticist foreign policy, while Trump's has been by and large a flaming dumpster fire.

Dumpster fire how?

 

[Phrossack]

What I do not get is how these are decided. I thought that the status of DC is in the constitution, and Puerto Rico have declined statehood in multiple referenda.

DC's status is defined, so the solution is to carve off the state of DC from the constitutionally defined District, which would still include the main government buildings.

PR has had referenda and statehood "won," with the caveat that so few people voted due to a refusal to recognize the referendum that it wasn't really counted, IIRC.