US Elections 2020

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

If I were a conservative, how would I respond to the President calling the media the enemy of the people and claiming he has total power over the states, then calling for Virginians to protect their second amendment rights through civil unrest during a pandemic? Or if a Democrat did similar things, would I vote for the Democrat because they're pro-choice and support gay marriage? I think I wouldn't and it may be tribalism but I haven't seen a Democrat show such a flagrant disregard for institutions and people as Trump.

---

If you were a true establishment Republican (affiliate and/or voter) I would imagine you would hate him. If you’re one of the extreme wingers, most likely Tea Party and/or Libertarian types, you’d probably be okay with him. The extreme wings of both parties tend to be filled with a lot of bomb throwing types , who are just happy when others are miserable (I didn’t say ALL mind you, but you know who you are). They like when Trump calls people names and makes people uncomfortable (It’s him sticking it to the Establishment man! :roll:..). The Green Party doesn’t have any out and out boors that I know of...and Bernie is pretty polite, but probably to a fault - if you listen to some of his most ardent supporters...which leads me to believe that if he was as crude as Trump...he’d still have their support, perhaps more so.

I’ve been a registered Democrat - but mostly to vote in local elections - the Democratic Party is so strong in NYC, it’s usually said you have to be a Democrat to vote, because quite often the Democratic Primary is the real election. I’ve became a registered Republican when I decided I didn’t want to be a hypocrite since I tended to vote conservative. Now I’m unaffiliated (President Trump being a strong contributing factor to that decision)...my beliefs straddle me almost dead center. I share little with both extremes of the two party platforms. I voted Clinton last election, because I figured she’d be better at actually running and understanding the job (and she doesn’t flout the rules of etiquette and common decency the way no one besides Trump does)...But I’m not an anyone other than Trump voter. If Bernie had won the primary I would have voted Trump. I believe Bernie is a very decent man and I also believe he’s one of the most honest, non corrupt politicians out there. But I don’t like his past love fest of embracing left wing totalitarian regimes...and I cannot go along with his economic policy views. Just screaming out that everything he supports is a basic human right, doesn’t make it so. I’m living on a decent pension with money attached to the market also. I understand that, even if he were to win the Presidency, there’s fat chance many of his issues would get past even people in the Democratic Party, but I’m not gambling on that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fred41

Because I can literally picture the same event in reverse - with the concerned party (Kavanaugh) having a reliably liberal ideology and submitted by Democrats...and you (or another poster), writing that whether or not it’s a criminal hearing or a “job interview”...western civilizations generally operate under the principle of Innocent until proven Guilty and blah, blah blah.

---

Presumption of innocence doesn't generally apply to job applicants though. There have been many past instances where nominations for official positions were withdrawn when something came up that cast a cloud over the nominee. Regular people often miss out on jobs for lesser reasons without due process - eg the interviewer just didn't like something about their manner or a previous employer made a negative comment and they were given no chance to respond. And how many of the myriads Trump has sacked received any due process?

At the end of the day it's a political decision and I think they decided to go ahead for political reasons because sticking it to liberals and the 'me too' movement appealed to the party base.

Aside from the rape allegation, there were good reasons to reject Kavanaugh in terms of judicial philosophy, notably his past support for an expansive interpretation of executive privilege. That may turn out to be critical at some future time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

I can see how this becomes a very difficult moral dilemma.

---

I'm not sure it's such a moral dilemma when we are talking about possible harm to one individual in the past versus the likelihood of harming the future well-being of hundreds of millions of people as well as seriously undermining democratic institutions. Even if the Republican candidate was someone squeaky clean would that outweigh the fact that he supports a policy that would leave millions more without health cover, to cite just one example?

I think a candidate's private conduct is relevant only for what it indicates about how they would behave in office. Bill Clinton's sexual behaviour was clearly not good but there is no evidence that this character flaw had any effect on the way he conducted himself as President. Trump, on the other, had a long history of dishonesty and lack of empathy for other people, and that has clearly carried over to his conduct as President. I don't see any equivalence between Republicans' willingness to overlook Trump's malignant narcissism and lack of moral scruples on any matter and Democrats' willingness to overlook sexual misconduct by Clinton and possibly Biden.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

I'm not sure it's such a moral dilemma when we are talking about possible harm to one individual in the past versus the likelihood of harming the future well-being of hundreds of millions of people as well as seriously undermining democratic institutions. Even if the Republican candidate was someone squeaky clean would that outweigh the fact that he supports a policy that would leave millions more without health cover, to cite just one example?

---

Perhaps we always choose the action that leads to the most utility but doesn't that make us vulnerable to ignoring and not deterring behavior that in the long run is harmful? I think you hit on the reason that I would have difficulty ever voting against even a morally reprehensible Democratic candidate.

But I suppose the dilemma is that on the one hand you're tempted to choose the option that leads to the best aggregate outcome but on the other hand there is injustice at the level of the individual, even if the bad act has already occurred.

I agree that Trump's character problems provide an entirely separate and much greater level of threat than anything else because of how it affects everything he does.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

I'm not sure it's such a moral dilemma...

---

It obviously becomes a tougher dilemma if you change the characters and the crime one has possibly committed (or any other circumstances of wrong doing). So, in the event this argument gets carried further, in either this, or possibly another thread in this section...there’s going to have to be a caveat - I’m going to invoke the “cute puppy, with a gun to it’s head, behind a curtain rule”...to make sure that the ONLY choices one has, is to vote on the two candidates (a Democrat and a Republican).abstaining is not an available option.

P.S. In the event you’re not a dog lover - replace the puppy with your cute baby brother Aloysius.

A symmetry of the unexpected might be unfolding in the UK and the USA. By Christmas, the President and Prime Minister could be different people from the men they are today.

In the UK, Boris Johnson has one month in which to make a criitical decision: if as a result of Covid 19 there has been such disruption to the negotiations on trade with the EU they cannot be concluded, he must seek an extension of the December deadline before the end of June. The original timetable had March as the onset of trade negotiations, with November the end date of the first phase to enable member states to consider the agreemet before a December signing. If that is not possible, and if Johnson does not seek an extension, and if there is no agreement by November, the UK will leave without a deal. In the past Johnson has welcomed this, but in the precise context of a country in a medical and economic crisis, is this not the worst time to be leaving the EU without a deal to rely solely on the WTO?

But if Johnson does what is right for the UK to seek an extension for another year, then, along with internal criticism of his mangement of the Covid 19 crisis, he could face a leadership contest, perhaps in December. It doesn't look likely, but then in the UK we have got used to the unxpected.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-46393399

Meanwhile, and I admit I don't know the precise mechanics of this, it seems to me that the US is being set up, or the President and his party are trying to set up a contested election in which, if it happens in November -and I think there is still a possibilty that he will at least try to postpone it- the controversy over 'mail in' votes, allegations of vote rigging, fraud etc, could mean that three or more States cannot offer a defiinitive count, or the losers will take the vote to Court and delay the outcome -even if the vote is not close. I think the calculation will be on the Electoral College votes and whether contested results in States can change the outcome of the election.

The man don't like losing, I think he will take everyone on, because in addition it will further weaken and divide the USA as a country.

Two hypotheticals, but are they so remote from reality?

An advisor to GW Bush was on BBC-Radio 4's The World at One (ie 1pm) and argued that the election could be postponed, and thinks the President is going to (try and) make China the key issue that divides the candidates.

She also pointed out each state has its own election methods, and this prompts the question: why?

It seems to me that the US needs an independent and Federal Election Commission to radically overhaul the way elections are held in the US. Thus-
-Change election day from a Tuesday in November to a Saturday and Sunday.
-One system for all: every State to have the same methods of voting: in-person, mail-in.
-Ballot Papers for County, State, and Presidential candidates to be separate.
-Boundaries of electoral districts to be set by the Commission.

One curiosity is mail-in votes. In the UK we call them postal votes and they used to be limited to people who could not vote in any other way, because, say, they were out of the country on election day, or in hospital and so on. The Blair goverment lifted those limitations so that postal voting is now a matter of choice, though for some it is a gift to conspiracy theorists who claim multiple voters at one address can all vote the same way -and be filled in by one person. Whatever.

On the other hand, while I believe Colorado has had majority mail-in votes for years, some lose out, like this community of Navajo in Arizona-
https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...icans-election

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

She also pointed out each state has its own election methods, and this prompts the question: why?

It seems to me that the US needs an independent and Federal Election Commission to radically overhaul the way elections are held in the US. Thus-
-Change election day from a Tuesday in November to a Saturday and Sunday.
-One system for all: every State to have the same methods of voting: in-person, mail-in.
-Ballot Papers for County, State, and Presidential candidates to be separate.
-Boundaries of electoral districts to be set by the Commission.

One curiosity is mail-in votes. In the UK we call them postal votes and they used to be limited to people who could not vote in any other way, because, say, they were out of the country on election day, or in hospital and so on. The Blair goverment lifted those limitations so that postal voting is now a matter of choice, though for some it is a gift to conspiracy theorists who claim multiple voters at one address can all vote the same way -and be filled in by one person. Whatever.

---

Because the Constitution says the selection of Electors is a matter for the States. It doesn't even specify that they must be elected. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...ntial_election Changing the system would require a constitutional amendment, which is a tall order - 2/3 of both houses and then 3/4 of state legislatures must agree.

About 10% of votes cast in the last Australian federal election were made by post, and I've never seen any suggestion that voter fraud is an issue.

Here’s an excellent article in The NY Times as to which party would benefit most by mail in votes. Let me ruin the ending for you - we still don’t know, but it gives reasons it may help or hinder either party. Don’t know how long it’ll stay up:https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/25/u...ronavirus.html

My concern wouldn’t be fraud, but I do have some reservations about loss of votes, either due to negligence or perhaps mistakes by either the voter or the postal service. Another problem, as pointed out by the article - voter registry can be a problem, sometimes due to changing addresses by a voter...a problem that occurs less with in-person voting, because registration can be done right then and there.

It would be nice if we can have a digital voting system we can depend on, but then not every one has a cell phone or computer. I guess nothing’s perfect. Maybe one day.

I don’t mind in person voting, some countries risk far greater threats to life, than just a virus to vote - and they come out to do it anyway, but that being said if you want more voting by the populace, then we’ll have to find a better way.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

Because the Constitution says the selection of Electors is a matter for the States. It doesn't even specify that they must be elected. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United...ntial_election Changing the system would require a constitutional amendment, which is a tall order - 2/3 of both houses and then 3/4 of state legislatures must agree.

About 10% of votes cast in the last Australian federal election were made by post, and I've never seen any suggestion that voter fraud is an issue.

---

I understand the Constituional aspects but if the US is serious about reform, is it not time for them to at least debate the reforms that will improve the operations of democracy? The point is, and not just because of the threats being made to the 2020 election, if now is not the time for reforn, when will it be? And are some of my proposals so unacceptable to both parties in Congress?
On the Tuesday phenomenon complete with 'buggies' (not buggers!) I found this explanation-
https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallp...=1590458960924

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fred41

Here’s an excellent article in The NY Times as to which party would benefit most by mail in votes. Let me ruin the ending for you - we still don’t know, but it gives reasons it may help or hinder either party. Don’t know how long it’ll stay up:https://www.nytimes.com/2020/05/25/u...ronavirus.html

My concern wouldn’t be fraud, but I do have some reservations about loss of votes, either due to negligence or perhaps mistakes by either the voter or the postal service. Another problem, as pointed out by the article - voter registry can be a problem, sometimes due to changing addresses by a voter...a problem that occurs less with in-person voting, because registration can be done right then and there.

It would be nice if we can have a digital voting system we can depend on, but then not every one has a cell phone or computer. I guess nothing’s perfect. Maybe one day.

I don’t mind in person voting, some countries risk far greater threats to life, than just a virus to vote - and they come out to do it anyway, but that being said if you want more voting by the populace, then we’ll have to find a better way.

---

It is an fascinating set of questions, and maybe the solution is a 'one-size fits all'? I do wonder why there are so many different ways of voting, and also I once saw a ballot paper and it looked like the menu from a fast food joint. Voting should be a pleasure, not an ordeal.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

I understand the Constituional aspects but if the US is serious about reform, is it not time for them to at least debate the reforms that will improve the operations of democracy? The point is, and not just because of the threats being made to the 2020 election, if now is not the time for reforn, when will it be? And are some of my proposals so unacceptable to both parties in Congress?
On the Tuesday phenomenon complete with 'buggies' (not buggers!) I found this explanation-
https://www.npr.org/sections/itsallp...=1590458960924

---

I would prefer that they make that Tuesday a national holiday instead of switching it too the weekend. Why? I could very well be wrong (I hope that I am), but I have a sneaking suspicion that either solution isn’t going to change the numbers all that much. In fact, they may make them worse. There are people that already have that day off as a holiday that don’t vote. A lot of people are just lazy. I’ve had debates on this with fellow employees (not evidence, I know) who will give you various reasons for not voting (on my job we got the whole day off...some other jobs let you leave early or you get two hours off, otherwise polls are also open beyond typical working hours). Their explanations rarely pass muster and , when listening to how they actually spent their time that day, it makes it easy to draw the conclusion that they simply couldn’t be bothered to vote. If you now change voting to the weekend, is it really more likely that someone will break up the opportunity to go away for a two day weekend and do their civic duty to vote? Same reason you can’t change it to a Monday - you just created a three day weekend. We have a hard enough time finding folks willing to sit on juries...and they sometimes get paid for that.

Either this is all just election gunfire, or the November election, if it happens, could be the most chaotic in US history -allegations made in advance by the party anxious it is going to lose? Or a full-spectrum assault on Democracy as you used to know it, to make the process itself appear invalid?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...g-restrictions

Can the President shut down social media? You have to wonder why Twitter is still going if Hillary Clinton can be pilloried as a 'skank'. The language of American politics is now so vile, and so deliberately vile, I wonder if any major public figure is going to say now is the time this must stop. Allegations of murder, insulting women, the disabed. Really, can nothing be done to stop it?
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...-conservatives

:iagree:

Three things happened over the past week that probably ruined Amy Klobuchar's chances of being picked as Biden's running mate and none of them were of her doing:

1. Biden's comments about black voters.
2. Black activists warning Biden not to pick her because of how poorly she did with black voters. Apparently they want it to be Warren.
3. The death of George Floyd in Minneapolis, a city in her home state.

I'm still hoping she gets picked because it will help balance out the ticket regionally. I also think because of Biden's age, I think you need a candidate that's going to inspire faith in the voters that the country will be in good hands if something were to happen to him. Finally, given how she fared in the debates, I think she will do well in one against Mike Pence.

Thanks for your thoughts, the oddschecker is linked below. Michelle Obama s 6th favourite though I think we know by now she has no interest in the job...so its Harris, Klobuchar, Warren, then Val Demings who is a new name to me, as is the 8th placed Catherine Masto.

https://www.oddschecker.com/politics...tic-vp-nominee

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

The language of American politics is now so vile, and so deliberately vile, I wonder if any major public figure is going to say now is the time this must stop. Allegations of murder, insulting women, the disabed. Really, can nothing be done to stop it?[/URL]

---

Why would that make any difference? The previous Republican president and their previous presidential candidate have criticised his behaviour and it had absolutely no effect on Trump or his supporters. The only thing that would make a difference is if Fox News said this must stop, but that isn't going to happen as long as Murdoch thinks that Trump's reelection will serve his interests.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

Why would that make any difference? The previous Republican president and their previous presidential candidate have criticised his behaviour and it had absolutely no effect on Trump or his supporters. The only thing that would make a difference is if Fox News said this must stop, but that isn't going to happen as long as Murdoch thinks that Trump's reelection will serve his interests.

---

If Fox took an honest line it probably would make a difference though it's interesting that at one point Trump had gotten so fed up with Chris Wallace occasionally being honest that he threatened to stop watching Fox and his supporters were looking for other outlets like OANN. I frequently see memes that show what CNN is broadcasting simultaneous with what MSNBC and Fox broadcast. It will be covid-19, state police in Minneapolis, and Chef Somebody making a steak sandwich respectively. These graphics do make Fox look like State tv, though Trump's control is only indirect, as Fox is there simply to boost the Republican party and make money presumably.

Today he tweeted that "when the looting starts the shooting starts" and twitter put a warning on his tweet that it glorified violence. He clearly wants to abolish whatever parts of the first amendment he can and is now having some tantrum about whether he can sanction twitter.

The fact is, he will do whatever he can get away with to consolidate his power. If Fox doesn't want to stop catering to his every whim and impulse and the Republican party doesn't want to stop him, the slide to authoritarianism will continue and right now it seems to be accelerating.

Actually in this case what he wants to do is abolish the separation of powers. Section 230 of the Communication Decency Act protects websites that host the views of third parties so that they are not liable for what third parties say. He keeps saying "revoke Section 230" but of course that would be a legislative change and not something he can do with any of his article ii powers. In a sense it does implicate the first amendment because it would be the government seeking a change in the law to punish speech by a particular company.

https://www.vox.com/recode/2020/5/28...itter-facebook

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fred41

I would prefer that they make that Tuesday a national holiday instead of switching it too the weekend. Why? I could very well be wrong (I hope that I am), but I have a sneaking suspicion that either solution isn’t going to change the numbers all that much. In fact, they may make them worse. There are people that already have that day off as a holiday that don’t vote. A lot of people are just lazy. I’ve had debates on this with fellow employees (not evidence, I know) who will give you various reasons for not voting (on my job we got the whole day off...some other jobs let you leave early or you get two hours off, otherwise polls are also open beyond typical working hours). Their explanations rarely pass muster and , when listening to how they actually spent their time that day, it makes it easy to draw the conclusion that they simply couldn’t be bothered to vote. If you now change voting to the weekend, is it really more likely that someone will break up the opportunity to go away for a two day weekend and do their civic duty to vote? Same reason you can’t change it to a Monday - you just created a three day weekend. We have a hard enough time finding folks willing to sit on juries...and they sometimes get paid for that.

---

Could you imagine trying to get someone to vote on a weekend during the middle of football season.

Most of the times that I have voted, its been either before I went into work or coming home from it. So there are ways to get around Election Day not being a national holiday or on a weekend. If you request a day off from work, most employers will honor that request. So just do the same for Election Day.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackchubby38

Could you imagine trying to get someone to vote on a weekend during the middle of football season.

Most of the times that I have voted, its been either before I went into work or coming home from it. So there are ways to get around Election Day not being a national holiday or on a weekend. If you request a day off from work, most employers will honor that request. So just do the same for Election Day.

---

Quite frankly, I no longer care how people want to vote in the United States. I’m always going to vote, otherwise I feel I’d be giving up the right to bitch and complain..lol. I honestly

The quote should’ve continued : I honestly believe that it should be a little inconvenient to vote. I think people should give pause to the moment. There are areas around the world ...many areas, not just a few, where voting can mean actually risking your life...for real, but when given the opportunity, they still come out and do it. Think of what their answer might be , to a complaint of the line being a little too long...or in fact, any complaint that has to do with “social distancing”.

So yeah, my opinion - most voting should be done in person. I’m always going to feel that way because of the importance of it. That’s what voting means to me.

Should voting be compulsory? Barrack Obama thought so, and famously, or notoriously, Australia has a voter turnout of 90-91%, though attending the polling station and being given a ballot doesn't mean the vote itself can take place -the voter can write on the paper 'I'd rather have a cold beer' or something more provocative...so it doesn't mean the State has taken away the right of people to refuse to participat, just made it more annoying. Two articles -one on Australia, the other more general put the case for and against. https://www.theguardian.com/australi...-from-trumpism https://www.psa.ac.uk/insight-plus/b...pulsory-voting

I'm in between Fred's view and compulsory voting. I don't think anyone should vote who actually doesn't want to or won't even fill out a ballot. But I think our democracy wants to know what leaders people prefer, not what sacrifice they'll make to place their vote. So I think it should be made reasonably convenient but also ensure the integrity of the election and prevent fraud to a reasonable degree. I think mailing does that and even if it's not the norm I think it's perfectly reasonable where there's a pandemic and people face unequal risks and in person voting might prevent some people from voting.

I wonder if its just coincidence or its because she is one of Minnesota's two senators that Amy Klobuchar's was one to make the announcement about the additional charges against the cops in George Floyd case. Or is it because Biden has already made up his mind about her being his running mate and just hasn't made the announcement yet.

One more thing about Biden's vice president nominee. Because of the death of George Floyd, progressives would have a problem with him picking someone with a background in law enforcement. Which not only effects Klobuchar's chances, but Harris' as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blackchubby38

One more thing about Biden's vice president nominee. Because of the death of George Floyd, progressives would have a problem with him picking someone with a background in law enforcement. Which not only effects Klobuchar's chances, but Harris' as well.

---

What about Val Demings? She was police chief in Orlando (and her husband was formerly sheriff of Orange County), but she's black and female.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Fitzcarraldo

What about Val Demings? She was police chief in Orlando (and her husband was formerly sheriff of Orange County), but she's black and female.

---

I would be all for it. But like I said in my earlier post, there are some progressive who don't want him to pick anyone with a background in law enforcement. Even if they are a minority.

I’m starting to hear Tammy Duckworth mentioned a lot. She does have an incredible biography.

21at Century America -but the machines don't work. Looks like this will be the most contested election, at so many levels...

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...er-suppression

Breaking News:

Amy Klobuchar is forced out...I mean takes herself out of consideration for Joe Biden's VP pick.

I often heard that one of the things that Biden is going to have to answer for with black voters is his writing of the 1994 crime bill. So I decided to do a little research about it to see what he exactly needs to apologize for.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_Crime_Control_and_Law_Enforcement_Act

Just a quick overview, the only parts of the law that I have an issue with would be:

Fifty new federal offenses were added, including provisions making membership in gangs a crime.
Violent Offender Incarceration and Truth-in-Sentencing Incentive Grants Program

The feeling is that that last one may have led to an increase in the prison population. But it even seems that maybe open to debate.

So if I'm Biden, I concentrate on the positives of the bill and talk about the incidences that led to the bill being passed.

Two things I do find interesting is that bill passed the Senate 95-4 and the fact inmates used to be able to receive a Pell Grant for higher education while incarcerated. I couldn't even get a Pell Grant when I was applying for financial aid in the early 1990s.'

Blackchubby,
thanks for posting that. I've heard Biden criticized for voting on that bill before but didn't know the provisions so I'll read it later. I have to say, punishing membership in any organization is usually suspect, even if it's a gang. It is something we do for terrorist organizations but generally we want to prosecute people for acts they've taken or particular conspiracies they've been a part of.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by broncofan

Blackchubby,
thanks for posting that. I've heard Biden criticized for voting on that bill before but didn't know the provisions so I'll read it later. I have to say, punishing membership in any organization is usually suspect, even if it's a gang. It is something we do for terrorist organizations but generally we want to prosecute people for acts they've taken or particular conspiracies they've been a part of.

---

That part of the law really didn't make sense to me. Especially since if they wanted to prosecute street gangs as an organization, they could have done it under a RICO indictment.

This is brutal but absolutely on the money...

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1275081110897057795

Well i'm pro Trump.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by CaptainSteel

Well i'm pro Trump.

---

Better out than in...

If the poll numbers get worse, he will resign, as he never loses. Then he can write a book about himself as the Greatest Undefeated President in the History of the World.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Laphroaig

This is brutal but absolutely on the money...

https://twitter.com/i/web/status/1275081110897057795

---

Completely Agree.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

If the poll numbers get worse, he will resign, as he never loses. Then he can write a book about himself as the Greatest Undefeated President in the History of the World.

---

What were the poll numbers before the 2016 election?

Sadly I don't think a Trump loss is a done deal yet by any means. Plus, if it's a close vote he'll claim corruption and probably have to be removed from the White House bunker, kicking and screaming "unfair", by the National Guard.