2020 US Election (Part One)

[Sommerswerd]

I haven't used any drugs ever, so cannot say. I do smoke (heavily), and can note that smoking does tend to relax you a bit. Although that effect is seriously diminished after the first years, to the point that it is rendered to more of a very brief fix.

Nicotine is a drug... just sayin'

 

[Traitorfish]

Yeah. I was actually considering the fact that registered Democrats are only about thirty percent of the electorate. They determine the nominee in the primaries, but if they nominate someone who doesn't draw the "typically vote for the Democrat but don't feel so strongly they register as one" then they face a difficult battle. A more difficult battle than I think is necessary.

How is this functionally different than "Bernie is bad because moderates will let the Republicans win"? Whether the moderates are registered Democrats or not feels like, at that point, haggling over the change.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

How is this functionally different than "Bernie is bad because moderates will let the Republicans win"? Whether the moderates are registered Democrats or not feels like, at that point, haggling over the change.

I think the issue is in the idea of "let the Republicans win." The fringe of the Democratic party had every opportunity to know that Trump and the GOP was going to be far worse for them than a "moderate Democrat" would ever be...but stayed home in a fit of pique. That is definitely "letting them win." A moderate who says "wow, the GOP is off the rails completely and way into the right side ditch here, but the Democratic party response is to nominate someone who openly stands off the left side of the road in their own ditch...bollocks, I'm screwed either way," isn't making the same kind of spite in the face of an obvious choice move, because they aren't really being presented with an obvious choice.

 

[Zardnaar]

I'm not sure people staying home was deliberate in terms of handing the election to Trump.

If they did it's more likely Hilary was assumed to win so their vote wouldn't matter.

 

[Patine]

I think the issue is in the idea of "let the Republicans win." The fringe of the Democratic party had every opportunity to know that Trump and the GOP was going to be far worse for them than a "moderate Democrat" would ever be...but stayed home in a fit of pique. That is definitely "letting them win." A moderate who says "wow, the GOP is off the rails completely and way into the right side ditch here, but the Democratic party response is to nominate someone who openly stands off the left side of the road in their own ditch...bollocks, I'm screwed either way," isn't making the same kind of spite in the face of an obvious choice move, because they aren't really being presented with an obvious choice.

I'm sorry, but I don't consider a corrupt, lying warmonger, cheerleader for Bush in the Senate to get a vote for the Iraq War, botched Secretary of State, and good friend of Wall Street (as well as having a seat on the Wal-Mart board of directors), to be "moderate," - unless social issues are ALL that matter to you. She was not worse than Trump, but certainly not better. A cheated election once it hit the GE, and horrid failure of the electoral system that that was all American voters truly had to choose between - two wretched monsters, just in different ways. Your post there is so disingenuous it's visibly bleeding.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I'm not sure people staying home was deliberate in terms of handing the election to Trump.

If they did it's more likely Hilary was assumed to win so their vote wouldn't matter.

This is probably accurate, and a clear indictment of the stupidity of the USian electorate. Even operating from the assumption that she was going to win, that election should haqve and could have been a down ballot massacre against the GOP, like 2018 was...but no, they stay home crybabies and the stay home overconfidents not only let Trump win, but let the GOP control both houses of congress at the same time.

I'm sorry, but I don't consider a corrupt, lying warmonger, cheerleader for Bush in the Senate to get a vote for the Iraq War, botched Secretary of State, and good friend of Wall Street (as well as having a seat on the Wal-Mart board of directors), to be "moderate," - unless social issues are ALL that matter to you. She was not worse than Trump, but certainly not better. A cheated election once it hit the GE, and horrid failure of the electoral system that that was all American voters truly had to choose between - two wretched monsters, just in different ways. Your post there is so disingenuous it's visibly bleeding.

Yeah sure man...no question Clinton would have pushed a giant "loot the treasury to the 1% tax cut" just like Trump did. Can hardly tell them apart. /S

 

[Patine]

This is probably accurate, and a clear indictment of the stupidity of the USian electorate. Even operating from the assumption that she was going to win, that election should haqve and could have been a down ballot massacre against the GOP, like 2018 was...but no, they stay home crybabies and the stay home overconfidents not only let Trump win, but let the GOP control both houses of congress at the same time.


Yeah sure man...no question Clinton would have pushed a giant "loot the treasury to the 1% tax cut" just like Trump did. Can hardly tell them apart. /S

Maybe not. But think of all the juicy opportunities for foreign wars and intervention Trump did, to his credit, a pass on that Clinton probably would've jumped on. And given her high level friends, her tax plans may not have been quite as overt and agregious as Trump's, but I still bet high income earners would have greatly and unfairly benefitted over the working class.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Maybe not. But think of all the juicy opportunities for foreign wars and intervention Trump did, to his credit, a pass on that Clinton probably would've jumped on. And given her high level friends, her tax plans may not have been quite as overt and agregious as Trump's, but I still bet high income earners would have greatly and unfairly benefitted over the working class.

Sure man, only the deepest end progressives can really be trusted...too bad that only about 15% of the electorate really support them.

 

[Patine]

Sure man, only the deepest end progressives can really be trusted...too bad that only about 15% of the electorate really support them.

Blame the Goebbels-McCarthy Propaganda Machine for that - not the candidates or their policies themselves. A lot of Americans still believe socio-political "fairy tales" that do not serve their best interests. It's very unfortunate, really. A hoodwink of Orwellian proportions.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Blame the Goebbels-McCarthy Propaganda Machine for that - not the candidates or their policies themselves. A lot of Americans still believe socio-political "fairy tales" that do not serve their best interests. It's very unfortunate, really. A hoodwink of Orwellian proportions.

Sure, but that doesn't mean that ignoring the reality of it is good politics. As I said, I don't differentiate much between the Democratic party candidates based on their policies. They are all good enough. They are also all fated, if elected, to push through a tiny sliver of them, at best...and the dirty truth is that the tiny sliver that will get pushed through is gonna be basically the same whether the candidate is Bernie, Biden, or someone in between. The only way that tiny sliver doesn't get pushed through is if some combination of crybabies manages to allow the GOP to keep a hand on the brakes...but there is absolutely no way that anything more than that tiny sliver gets pushed through.

 

[Berzerker]

If Hillary had won we'd still be in Syria trying to topple Assad by arming ISIS

lesser evil my arse

 

[Patine]

Sure, but that doesn't mean that ignoring the reality of it is good politics. As I said, I don't differentiate much between the Democratic party candidates based on their policies. They are all good enough. They are also all fated, if elected, to push through a tiny sliver of them, at best...and the dirty truth is that the tiny sliver that will get pushed through is gonna be basically the same whether the candidate is Bernie, Biden, or someone in between. The only way that tiny sliver doesn't get pushed through is if some combination of crybabies manages to allow the GOP to keep a hand on the brakes...but there is absolutely no way that anything more than that tiny sliver gets pushed through.

The problem is, also, most Americans are drilled to view politics like a football game - your team must win at all costs. This leads to party faithful voting for bad candidates and bad policies because the party "endorses and nominates them." What's really needed in the U.S. is a legislative revolt - a mass, coordinated vote for Third Party and Independent candidates for President and Congress, if not to actually outright win, to shake the two main parties out of their smug complacence and let them know their invincibility at the polls is not assured, to force more genuine accountability and responsibility to their constituents, and not detached assurance. Of course, I'm doubting that, even though other nations' electorates have done similar things, the American voters have that much backbone and conviction, outside of talking big talk about standing up for their rights and liberties.

 

[Berzerker]

I'm sorry, but I don't consider a corrupt, lying warmonger, cheerleader for Bush in the Senate to get a vote for the Iraq War, botched Secretary of State, and good friend of Wall Street (as well as having a seat on the Wal-Mart board of directors), to be "moderate," - unless social issues are ALL that matter to you. She was not worse than Trump, but certainly not better. A cheated election once it hit the GE, and horrid failure of the electoral system that that was all American voters truly had to choose between - two wretched monsters, just in different ways.

Good post...but she is worse than Trump, she has several wars to account for.

 

[Patine]

Good post...but she is worse than Trump, she has several wars to account for.

That is true. But, though he's highly unethical, dishonest, corrupt, vitriolic, incompetent, and allowing certain right-wing to act more freely, most on these forums (and another strategy game forum I frequent) speak as if he's a worst President in U.S. history (I can actually think of about 10 or so who are worse, including one in my own lifetime whose initials are GWB), and some portray him hyperbolically as almost a "Hitler" figure, or even an "Antichrist," figure, and that the world will end, or be unlivable, if he wins re-election in 2020. Now, to make clear my perspective - I am NOT a Trump supporter - I believe he is a wretched President, a horrible human being, and incompetent and highly irresponsible as a leader, and the fact that he personally obviously does not ascribe to the doctrines of any of the major GOP camps - the Social Conservatives, the Neo-Cons, the War Hawks, the Libertarians, or the Free Trade Corporatists - but is vapid showman who only seems to believe in himself and his own promotion, and being President is probably a publicity stunt, and not seriously taking on a mandate of high public duty for him - that the Republican Party of the United States committed ideological suicide by nominating him. The point is, the portrayal of him by his opponents - or, in reverse, by cult of personality - is RIDICULOUSLY over-the-top and WAY out of proportion with reality.

 

[Berzerker]

I agree with much of that, but he does have an ideological 'center' so to speak. He was competing for Perot's throne and the big issue driving the reform party was trade. That faction eventually combined with the people tired of the warmongering to give Trump a base among 'independents' to join Republicans.

 

[Takhisis]

Yes, lmaus, but you're still falling for the trap of buying the ridiculous argument that Donald J. Trump is a man of peace.

 

[Patine]

I agree with much of that, but he does have an ideological 'center' so to speak. He was competing for Perot's throne and the big issue driving the reform party was trade. That faction eventually combined with the people tired of the warmongering to give Trump a base among 'independents' to join Republicans.

Actually, Perot pushed electoral reform very hard too. Trump hasn't mentioned it at all. Funny that. You'd think he may have actually benefited from the broken, antique, malrepresentative electoral system of the Electoral College by winning the election with less votes, and thus had a personal ulterior motive to keep it completely intact. Where would anyone get that idea from?

 

[Takhisis]

one (…) whose initials are GWB

That one?

 

[Lexicus]

The point is, the portrayal of him by his opponents - or, in reverse, by cult of personality - is RIDICULOUSLY over-the-top and WAY out of proportion with reality.

And with this you have set upon the reason comparisons to Hitler are not really hyperbolic. They are both megalomaniacs who accept no limits to their own power and erected cults of personality around themselves.

 

[Patine]

And with this you have set upon the reason comparisons to Hitler are not really hyperbolic. They are both megalomaniacs who accept no limits to their own power and erected cults of personality around themselves.

This is part of the hyperbole I find so bewildering, and counter-productive to any rational discussion. If Trump accepts no limits on his power, as much so as Hitler, why does the Democratic Party of the United States still exist, why is there an actual election coming up in 2020, why are the big Socially Progressive, Anti-Trump talking heads still alive (or, at least, not incarcerated indefinitely for undefined charges, in hiding, or in exile abroad), and why are you free to complain so vociferously about him to me here on the Internet? I think there is, in truth, a BIG difference between the limits on the power of Hitler and Trump...