Mega-Thread: 2020 United States General Election

[cors8]

Trump is promising to make the cut permanent. It’s one of the few policy points he has. The projection I am pointing out, with defunding by 2023, is if the tax cut is implemented in January 2021. It being started in September 2020, should move the clock up, but I have not seen that date yet.



I would just like to point out, the person he agreed with, will be losing his Social Security, Medicare and VA benefits, if Trump’s plans are enacted. Things that would explicitly be reinforced in the Biden plan... but, because we can boil down everything to the lowest common denominator on Twitter... they are all the same... even if Trump is the lowest denominator on Twitter, competing with middle aged KPop fans...

The dumb thing is all the people who would vote for Trump don't realize that if SS goes bankrupt, ALL the money you've already put in goes away. You're never going to get any of that back.

If Republicans and Conservatives want to get rid of SS, I expect a fucking check with all the money I've paid into it plus interest.

[Blur4stuff]

Wonderful think about SS is we know exactly what the country is like without it. No need to guess.

[Felya]

Wonderful think about SS is we know exactly what the country is like without it. No need to guess.

The numbers of people moving back with their parents, hopefully will soften the blow.

[DingDongKing]

The numbers of people moving back with their parents, hopefully will soften the blow.

It'll be like Will Ferrell in Wedding Crashers. 'More meatloaf, Ma!'

[arandomuser]

During my lifetime, I have never seen such division between political parties. The degree of hatred and disagreements have reached the point, there is no room for debate. Too far apart for it to work. You see that in this forum. It is a waste of time and effort to even try to discuss it. Of course, most on here will say it is Trump's fault.

yeah "both parties" fault
one party says, this climate change thing is increasing global temperatures yearly, and if we reduce carbon emissions we can control this from increasing sea levels and habitat destruction
And the other party says: " its a fake news hoax by china to hurt us manufacturing"


are both sides making valid points here? or is one side just denying the reality

atleast pre trump the republican party position was " yeah its real but we rather have industry creating jobs regardless of climate or environmental impact" but as the evidence of the harm of climate change became more evident they have gone to just denying it all together.

- - - Updated - - -

Found the discussion you were looking for:
https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...to-work/page15

As I already said:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

@PACOX let’s discuss... here is Biden’s solution:

Joe Biden’s surprisingly visionary housing plan, explained
https://www.vox.com/2020/7/9/2131691...plan-section-8


What do you think?

so many good things would happen if joe biden wins and dems take the senate
i can understand republicans opposing them for the usual reason
but half the time im literally arguing with other people who "claim" to be on the left about these issues

[Sunseeker]

The numbers of people moving back with their parents, hopefully will soften the blow.

I mean...how exactly? If nothing else, this will make things worse. Since arguably the reason people move back with their parents is due to loss of income, and that their parents still have SS-income and can provide some aid in the form of food and shelter.

But if the parents don't have SS, and the kids don't have jobs, where does that leave either of them?

[cubby]

During my lifetime, I have never seen such division between political parties. The degree of hatred and disagreements have reached the point, there is no room for debate. Too far apart for it to work. You see that in this forum. It is a waste of time and effort to even try to discuss it. Of course, most on here will say it is Trump's fault.

Which it is, entirely, Trump's fault.

The real irony is that people on your side, the Trumpkin side, the Trumpster and Trumphahis, complain and complain about "the divide" and "the division" and "why can't government get something done" when it's entirely your party, your chosen Dear Leader, who is preventing anything from getting done, from helping the people who need it the most.

But please, keep going with your ridiculous and morally and intellectually bankrupt statements of "both sides" - that's just what Trump is hoping you'll do.

[Felya]

I mean...how exactly? If nothing else, this will make things worse. Since arguably the reason people move back with their parents is due to loss of income, and that their parents still have SS-income and can provide some aid in the form of food and shelter.

But if the parents don't have SS, and the kids don't have jobs, where does that leave either of them?

I was being facetious...

[Gestopft]

Which it is, entirely, Trump's fault.

It's fair to say that Trump widened the cleft, but so did the Tea Party. So did Gingrich.

(Love the sig)

- - - Updated - - -

If you're an older conservative then you should remember the 80s and 90s. The republican party turned religion into a weapon. .

They also turned the concept of taxation into a weapon

[Kaleredar]

They also turned the concept of taxation into a weapon

In a sense, it's all about being afriad of something, rather than pushing to achieve anything.

Afraid the government is going to take your guns, afraid the government is going to take too much of your money, afraid that that money might go to people that "don't deserve it," afraid that the immigrants are going to steal your jobs, afraid that secular/different religions are going to replace Christianity, afraid that the trivialities of something like gay marriage would way so heavily on the conscious of someone who they believe to also be the creator of the infinite universe that they see the need fight tooth and nail against it.

And then all their policies are just pursuant to supposedly addressing the fear they've told others to feel.

At no point in there are they reaching or striving for anything better for the country or society as a whole. I suppose it boils back down to the whole "laissez faire" fallacy wherein, by simply removing all roadblocks, things will just "make themselves better for everyone." They see the lack of progress in the United States as the symptom of some other standing in the way, whether that be immigrants, minorities, the government, scientists... whoever... rather than the very real lack of any actual ambition on the part of their platform.

An easy example... America didn't go to the moon just because it "so happened that way," it did so because America made it a national directive to do so. It wasn't something that was just going to "happen when all roadblocks were removed and the free hand of the market would make it so."

[arandomuser]

In a sense, it's all about being afriad of something, rather than pushing to achieve anything.

Afraid the government is going to take your guns, afraid the government is going to take too much of your money, afraid that that money might go to people that "don't deserve it," afraid that the immigrants are going to steal your jobs, afraid that secular/different religions are going to replace Christianity, afraid that the trivialities of something like gay marriage would way so heavily on the conscious of someone who they believe to also be the creator of the infinite universe that they see the need fight tooth and nail against it.

And then all their policies are just pursuant to supposedly addressing the fear they've told others to feel.

At no point in there are they reaching or striving for anything better for the country or society as a whole. I suppose it boils back down to the whole "laissez faire" fallacy wherein, by simply removing all roadblocks, things will just "make themselves better for everyone." They see the lack of progress in the United States as the symptom of some other standing in the way, whether that be immigrants, minorities, the government, scientists... whoever... rather than the very real lack of any actual ambition on the part of their platform.

An easy example... America didn't go to the moon just because it "so happened that way," it did so because America made it a national directive to do so. It wasn't something that was just going to "happen when all roadblocks were removed and the free hand of the market would make it so."

I think your right, but i think you forget something very key, is republicans were never opposed to government all together, for example how did they go from the tea party dont tread on me, to " i alone can solve your problems", because it was meant as a safeguard of the "others". The foundation of the modern GOP was the southern strategy which was a racial dogwhistle, "certain people" are taking your tax money in the form of food stamps, welfare, section 8, and you the honest working man arent getting any of it! And eventually over time their own economic policies start hurting white people, and then trump comes along and says, " ok we will do government programs, but only if they help white people" And immediately the whole low taxes budget deficit, personal responsibility thing is out the window... so you have someone like trump who cuts food stamps by 180 BILLION Whilst giving 30 billion dollars to farmers in iowa to pay for his trade war, which is paid for by taxes on people with the lowest income people

[Ghostpanther]

yeah "both parties" fault
one party says, this climate change thing is increasing global temperatures yearly, and if we reduce carbon emissions we can control this from increasing sea levels and habitat destruction
And the other party says: " its a fake news hoax by china to hurt us manufacturing"


are both sides making valid points here? or is one side just denying the reality

atleast pre trump the republican party position was " yeah its real but we rather have industry creating jobs regardless of climate or environmental impact" but as the evidence of the harm of climate change became more evident they have gone to just denying it all together.

- - - Updated - - -

No offense, but your response of the differences, is too simplistic. It involves a lot more than just climate change.

It is sad to say, but the differences has reached the point I think no return. While over dramatic, this scene from the movie, Independence Day, sort of sums it up.



The differences can reach a point where compromise is impossible.

[Mihalik]

I never tire of repeating this.

Trump and the GOP check every single one of the 14 points of Umberto Ecco for identifying fascism.

The fourteen properties are as follows:

1. "The Cult of Tradition", characterized by cultural syncretism, even at the risk of internal contradiction. When all truth has already been revealed by Tradition, no new learning can occur, only further interpretation and refinement.

2. "The Rejection of modernism", which views the rationalistic development of Western culture since the Enlightenment as a descent into depravity. Eco distinguishes this from a rejection of superficial technological advancement, as many fascist regimes cite their industrial potency as proof of the vitality of their system.

3. "The Cult of Action for Action's Sake", which dictates that action is of value in itself, and should be taken without intellectual reflection. This, says Eco, is connected with anti-intellectualism and irrationalism, and often manifests in attacks on modern culture and science.

4. "Disagreement Is Treason" – Fascism devalues intellectual discourse and critical reasoning as barriers to action, as well as out of fear that such analysis will expose the contradictions embodied in a syncretistic faith.

5. "Fear of Difference", which fascism seeks to exploit and exacerbate, often in the form of racism or an appeal against foreigners and immigrants.

6. "Appeal to a Frustrated Middle Class", fearing economic pressure from the demands and aspirations of lower social groups.

7. "Obsession with a Plot" and the hyping-up of an enemy threat. This often combines an appeal to xenophobia with a fear of disloyalty and sabotage from marginalized groups living within the society (such as the German elite's 'fear' of the 1930s Jewish populace's businesses and well-doings; see also anti-Semitism). Eco also cites Pat Robertson's book The New World Order as a prominent example of a plot obsession.

8. Fascist societies rhetorically cast their enemies as "at the same time too strong and too weak." On the one hand, fascists play up the power of certain disfavored elites to encourage in their followers a sense of grievance and humiliation. On the other hand, fascist leaders point to the decadence of those elites as proof of their ultimate feebleness in the face of an overwhelming popular will.

9. "Pacifism is Trafficking with the Enemy" because "Life is Permanent Warfare" – there must always be an enemy to fight. Both fascist Germany under Hitler and Italy under Mussolini worked first to organize and clean up their respective countries and then build the war machines that they later intended to and did use, despite Germany being under restrictions of the Versailles treaty to not build a military force. This principle leads to a fundamental contradiction within fascism: the incompatibility of ultimate triumph with perpetual war.

10. "Contempt for the Weak", which is uncomfortably married to a chauvinistic popular elitism, in which every member of society is superior to outsiders by virtue of belonging to the in-group. Eco sees in these attitudes the root of a deep tension in the fundamentally hierarchical structure of fascist polities, as they encourage leaders to despise their underlings, up to the ultimate Leader who holds the whole country in contempt for having allowed him to overtake it by force.

11."Everybody is Educated to Become a Hero", which leads to the embrace of a cult of death. As Eco observes, "[t]he Ur-Fascist hero is impatient to die. In his impatience, he more frequently sends other people to death."

12. "Machismo", which sublimates the difficult work of permanent war and heroism into the sexual sphere. Fascists thus hold "both disdain for women and intolerance and condemnation of nonstandard sexual habits, from chastity to homosexuality."

13. "Selective Populism" – The People, conceived monolithically, have a Common Will, distinct from and superior to the viewpoint of any individual. As no mass of people can ever be truly unanimous, the Leader holds himself out as the interpreter of the popular will (though truly he dictates it). Fascists use this concept to delegitimize democratic institutions they accuse of "no longer represent[ing] the Voice of the People."

14."Newspeak" – Fascism employs and promotes an impoverished vocabulary in order to limit critical reasoning

No exceptions. These elections might as well be reduced to a yes or no answer to the question "Do you want the US to become a fascist state?"

This is no longer about specific policy points (the GOP has no policies beyond obeying the Fuhrer), or minor ideological squabbles. It's a question of preserving democracy or living under fascist rule.

[Felya]

No offense, but your response of the differences, is too simplistic. It involves a lot more than just climate change.

Does Trump’s seemingly sycophantic demand to support fossil fuel conglomerates, at the cost of both, massive US debt and destruction of American natural wonders... come into play at all? Are we just going to ignore reality and blame everything on teams?

The thing is... I am not voting Trump, not because I am on team Biden... but, the explicit record of Donald Trump. Making it seem just a mater of teams, is just part of Trump’s bullshit to forget his record. This is simply you knowing that Trump can’t win on his record, so you got to brow beat people into teams. It’s United States vs Trump Loyalist... that’s not teams, that an attack on US...

Edit: Are you voting Trump because of teams or because your social security is getting defunded? I wonder why teams has to be a talking point... very peculiar... it’s like, if it wasn’t for teams, you wouldn’t vote against your self interest or the interest of American people.

Edit 2: You know why it’s about teams? Loyalty is the only reason to vote for Trump, as unemployment is nearly double from his start, 200000 dead due to a pandemic that he defunded the prep team for, and a 14% towards individual taxes collected over corporate, the largest deficit in history, the lowest position of US in the world in over 100 years... Teams and loyalty is all Trump has...

[Sunseeker]

I was being facetious...

Ah, did not catch that.

- - - Updated - - -

I never tire of repeating this.

Trump and the GOP check every single one of the 14 points of Umberto Ecco for identifying fascism.



No exceptions. These elections might as well be reduced to a yes or no answer to the question "Do you want the US to become a fascist state?"

This is no longer about specific policy points (the GOP has no policies beyond obeying the Fuhrer), or minor ideological squabbles. It's a question of preserving democracy or living under fascist rule.

The problem, even with such a blunt question, is that there are a lot of people, you know the ones who spout "America isn't a democracy it's a constitutional republic" who A: have no idea what the difference between systems actually is, and B: don't give a fuck as long as "their guy" is in charge.

- - - Updated - - -

No offense, but your response of the differences, is too simplistic. It involves a lot more than just climate change.

It is sad to say, but the differences has reached the point I think no return. While over dramatic, this scene from the movie, Independence Day, sort of sums it up.



The differences can reach a point where compromise is impossible.

The....difference between intergalactic locusts who've come to strip the world of its resources and destroy humanity and...everyone else?

Do you understand the scene you're showing here? Do you understand the movie? At what point in the movie do you think the ideological differences between the aliens and humanity diverged? At what point were the ideologies between the aliens and humanity close? After blowing up the majority of the major cities in the world, what "compromise" do you think was still available?

Which side do you think you're on, the side protecting the planet and its people, or the one stripping it for its resources without care to who it harms?

You Trumpers do this a lot you know, and you really ought to stop. You clip scenes from movies like you think it's helping you make your point, when in reality its just showing how fucking whacked you sound.

[Gestopft]

B: don't give a fuck as long as "their guy" is in charge.

David Frum of all people said it best: "If conservatives become convinced that they can not win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will reject democracy."

[Sunseeker]

David Frum of all people said it best: "If conservatives become convinced that they can not win democratically, they will not abandon conservatism. They will reject democracy."

And I think the proliferation of the "it's not a democracy, it's a constitutional republic" over the last few years (I don't recall if this argument existed under Obama or earlier) really underscores the point that conservatives, even the lay conservative voter has given up on the idea of democracy. "Constitutional republic" however accurate it may be, is just a way of soft peddling the idea that only certain people should be in charge and only certain people should be allowed to participate in the process.

"Democracy" has this pesky underlying current that everyone gets to participate. That everyone gets to have a say in things. I think it's fair at this point to suggest that conservatives, even the lay voter, doesn't believe in that anymore. In some cases, I'd be surprised if they ever did.

[Endus]

And I think the proliferation of the "it's not a democracy, it's a constitutional republic" over the last few years (I don't recall if this argument existed under Obama or earlier) really underscores the point that conservatives, even the lay conservative voter has given up on the idea of democracy. "Constitutional republic" however accurate it may be, is just a way of soft peddling the idea that only certain people should be in charge and only certain people should be allowed to participate in the process.

"Democracy" has this pesky underlying current that everyone gets to participate. That everyone gets to have a say in things. I think it's fair at this point to suggest that conservatives, even the lay voter, doesn't believe in that anymore. In some cases, I'd be surprised if they ever did.

It's been around way longer than Trump. Back through Bush II, at least. And it's just patently silly; if you mean "democracy" as in Athenian democracy, then that hasn't existed anywhere for more than 2000 years. May as well be protesting the Hammurabic Code. If you mean any electoral system with free elections, representative or otherwise, then the USA's a democracy and you need to stop being an idiot about it.

Republicans don't have any interest in democracy, however. They exist not to find the best compromise, but to seize power and control. That's the ideological baseline, and why they frame everything so oppositionally, and why compromise is only ever seen as concession and loss, to them. Democracy has always been their enemy, which is why they're so responsible for ridiculous gerrymandering, why election interference has been an ongoing Republican tentpole for decades, and so on.

[Gestopft]

"Constitutional republic" however accurate it may be, is just a way of soft peddling the idea that only certain people should be in charge and only certain people should be allowed to participate in the process.

You see this exact dynamic whenever it comes to discussions of the Electoral College and the imbalanced nature of the Senate. Every time they bring up that these institutions are supposed to "protect the minority from the majority," I ask them "at what point does 'protecting the minority' actually become 'minority rule?'" They don't ever seem to have an answer for that. Or they say that "rural citizens shouldn't live under the dictates of urban dwellers" or something, but include nothing to indicate that they think the reverse is also true.

[Zan15]

The dumb thing is all the people who would vote for Trump don't realize that if SS goes bankrupt, ALL the money you've already put in goes away. You're never going to get any of that back.

If Republicans and Conservatives want to get rid of SS, I expect a fucking check with all the money I've paid into it plus interest.

Nah just like it is today they will hope the rich coastal liberal elites will bail out the rest of the country.

Just like it is today with federal funding. Only 7-9 states (depending on the year) subsidize the rest of the country and the bottom 15+ that get more than 50-200% per dollar paid in taxes.

Just like the baby boomers have expected bailouts by their kids in the last 40+ years. they knew they were underfunding SS the second taxes stopped being increased on payroll taxes in the late 1980's. Medicare went from being fully funded to under 45% funded since they took over power.

- - - Updated - - -

No offense, but your response of the differences, is too simplistic. It involves a lot more than just climate change.

It is sad to say, but the differences has reached the point I think no return. While over dramatic, this scene from the movie, Independence Day, sort of sums it up.



The differences can reach a point where compromise is impossible.

LOL so wait...

So the aliens are Trump and his supporters.

They just destroyed most of the country.... They want to finish the rest of it off.

Democrats want to compromise in order to save what is left of the country.

Trump and his supporters refuse and want to finish it off.

Then you say "both sides man, both sides".


You should maybe watch the movie on half speed or read an interpretation by the author and director to understand complicated parts like this one.