Mega-Thread: 2020 United States General Election

[unfilteredJW]

Also anyone who thinks my lack of voting for Clinton in 2016 help get Trump elected are 100% factually incorrect.

That's not what "factually incorrect" means.

[beanman12345]

In 2020 Clinton sycophants still want to blame Jill Stein for Clinton losing to Trump.

Reading comprehension much? I'm not a Clinton sycophant, I literally just said, and have said many times in this thread, that I voted for Clinton for 1 reason. The supreme court. And it's the same reason I'm voting for Biden.

[PACOX]

The people dogpile onto commenters here is nasty.

[beanman12345]

More people voted for Kasich then Voted for Jill Stein. So if you're going to incorrectly assume every Green Party Voter goes to Clinton, then you should apply the same broken logic to the libertarian votes going to Trump. Neither or which I subscribe too, because that line of thinking is very illogical.

- - - Updated - - -



Anyone not blaming Clinton for losing to Trump didn't pay enough attention during the General Election. Then again I see the same mistakes being made this year.

Again reading comprehension much? Where did I put the blame on Clinton losing to anyone? She had a part in losing for sure. Clinton, Russia, misinformation, Comey, all to blame. If it's the same mistakes, than it's the same people falling to the same traps laid out for them.

[Zaktar]

The people dogpile onto commenters here is nasty.

Many people disagreeing with someone is a "nasty dogpile"?

[Telogrus]

Many people disagreeing with someone is a "nasty dogpile"?

If we’re going off of the words of Democrats who whined about a lot of Bernie Bros disagreeing with them on Twitter, then yes

[PACOX]

If we’re going off of the words of Democrats who whined about a lot of Bernie Bros disagreeing with them on Twitter, then yes

I believe words such as 'harassment' were used.

[Telogrus]

Worth noting that you're only in this thread because you cried about people being mean to you on Twitter and how you just wanted to be left alone and wanted nothing to do with politics.

You know, before you changed your name and dived right into all this politics nonsense.

That was Milkflower or whatever his/her name was.

[Zaktar]

I believe words such as 'harassment' were used.

If people are behaving inappropriately, report them. Otherwise if you voice an opinion many people disagree with, it's expected and natural that many people will voice their disagreement.

[Sunseeker]

The problem you are not considering is that any of the previous people running also have something Joe Biden has in abundance: Name Recognition. The 2 governors may be in the news, but neither one of them has any name recognition worth a damn. And you would want to start now?

Hence the wording "magically replace". Hypotheticals and all that mate.

But both of them will have name recognition going forward after this.

[Acidbaron]

I don't understand this seemingly circular logic.

First, you'd have quite of a time in listing all the policies from all the presidents that clearly demonstrate a connection to putting someone like Trump in the WH.

As to your logic, you don't want to vote for Biden cause he represents that which you think put Trump in the WH. But Trump is in the WH right now and not voting for his direct opponent means that he will remain in the WH, something which you are apparently agaisnt.

This is some Nero like stuff. You're displeased with the status quo and you're willing to set the whole thing on fire and watch it burn to the ground, so you can come later and rebuild, except there won't be anyone or anything there to rebuilt from.

You're willingly participating in the process of holding back your country for 4 more years, why? Because you're the spoiled kid in the yard who isn't getting his way and decides to scream and pout until everyone else concedes?

Some people have the luxury to be blind idealists and claiming it is done for the best of the country in the long term, however this is easy to do when you are not the one paying the price.

It honestly makes no sense, i have never abstained my vote out of spite. Change also comes from within not standing on the outside shouting things should be done better.

It is easy to claim that voting for nobody is putting the wrong person in charge because they aren't doing anything at all.

[Acidbaron]

Can't claim that Maher isn't critical of the democrats either.

[Acidbaron]

Well, should the Democratic be able to win the elections with the awful presumptive nominee Biden they're putting forward right now, then it'll pretty much be some sort of last chance for them to redeem themselves. Sure, Trump is an absolute disaster for the leadership of any nation - a blessing for every big money alligned crook and millionaire out there, but the mainstream US politicians that the Democratic Party has spewed forward have not exactly been beacons of progress themselves over the past decades - especially when it comes to economic policy. You can easily go check a long list of all the promises that were broken by Obama and Clinton B on the internet, every single one of them was about promises related to financial aid or tax cuts... In fact one of the Obama's main campaign promises was cutting taxes on the poor and middle classes, when in reality he gave a tax cut to the upper classes instead. Even his promises of providing government aid to student loans never came to fruition or were even given much attention.

The people who are currently displeased are the people who still remember what went on there.

And have people also forgotten the longwinded analyses that went on for years after Trump won the election about -why- Trump won? One of the main points was that the Democratic Party had completely neglected the working class and / or even if that isn't true and that is just the image that existed, they surely didn't do much effort to avoid life getting worse for them year after year.

That's nice,

Now those are all lessons they can put into practice when democrats have the Presidency than when a republican is still there.

All in all you think you make a good case voting against Biden while in reality you make a good case for voting against donny dumbo. Because all what the democrats did poorly he did worse.

Fun fact for you, the last republican president who actually remotely gave a damn about the working class was Nixon. So if you are truly concerned about the working class you shouldn't have been voting republican for a long time.

[Acidbaron]

Maher is a tool, and it's clear he'd do or say anything he has to to get Trump out of office. Including lying by omission.

He never once mentioned all the people who can corroborate Tara story she has told over the years. No mention of the court document line up with what Tara has said or tara's ex-husband's court declaration when he wrote Tara has said she had, “a problem she was having at work regarding sexual harassment, in U.S. Senator Joe Biden’s office.” No mention news producer, who worked with Ronan Farrow Harvey Weinstein story, also story had vetted Tara claims and finds the people who spoke with "credible".

But I suspect more people will watch Maher drone on about how much more corrupt the DNC should be then the actual Tara Interviews that have been shown, because people don't want to watch since they've already made up their mind.

Sounds like you to be honest, you have also made up your mind on the matter so what makes you more right than anyone else his?
You have also decided to grant certain sources more credible than others and also embraced them more because it suits your view better.

Now i am not saying this is true or false, i am simply stating that the message from Maher makes sense and he also is not lying as he simply states that in the grand scheme of things it matters less.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm well aware of that, but the Democratic Party has not been doing any better either.

The Democratic Party has mastered how to 'appear' nice in the media and how to pretend they care, but when you look closer at what they actually do and where they actually put their support you'll notice that they're also just putting most of their weight behind supporting the upper classes and corporations.

The both sides argument is weak and a false, as while both pander to their benefactors one does not go out of their way to dismantle agencies and attack worker rights flat out.

We only need to look at the difference in governors handling the corona crisis, Democrats are far more concerned about the well being than republicans are by a factor of ten.

[Grimbold21]

I'm well aware of that, but the Democratic Party has not been doing any better either.

The Democratic Party has mastered how to 'appear' nice in the media and how to pretend they care, but when you look closer at what they actually do and where they actually put their support you'll notice that they're also just putting most of their weight behind supporting the upper classes and corporations.

You and others keep making about the Democratic party and unkept promises.

First of all, campaign promises that don't turn into something concrete when the one making it is as old as politics.

And this isn't about the Democratic party. It's about not giving a person a chance who is universally considered to be an abhorrent individual and politician.

You talk about the Democrats not meeting progressive agendas. How would maintaining a regressive politician in power help that in any way?

[Grimbold21]

By sending a strong message to the Democratic Party that appointing conservative leaders and advisors isn't the way to go.

But maintaining a guy who's as regressive as it gets is the antithesis of progressive.
You cannot claim to be for the betterment of society while supporting a man that is the opposite of that, just because the alternative still doesn't meet your ideological standards.

You are not progressives.


I'm sorry, but there's little way for one to see this except for the spoiled brat who didn't get his candy.

[Grimbold21]

There is still a long time to go between now and November. There is absolutely nothing to gain for progressives by currently already throwing up their hands in the air and declaring: "Sure, we're 100% behind Biden and will support him with our lives!" - I'm sorry, but that is not how politics works or how you could try to persuade the Democratic Party to take on a more progressive stance.

The people who currently are upset that a great deal of democratics are declaring that they won't vote for Biden in November (as things currently stand) are conservatives and they're trying to squelch any movement towards the Democratic Party presenting a more progressive option in November (whether that is Biden with morer progressive policies and staff / advisors or a more progressive nominee).

Within the American mainstream understanding of Conservatives, why would one be upset about people not voting for Biden? I'd think that they'd be happy to have Trump remain in the WH.

But you've made yourself clear in the past, have you not? Be it now or November, you won't change your stance. Let's lay our cards on the table: November comes and Biden is still the Democratic nominee. Would you vote or not for him?

It is ironic that one who lacks nuance in their perspective chooses to frame their critics through one single lens. So, every person criticizing your stance is a conservative?

This reminds me a bit of the Portuguese situation, although it's less significant, by a huge margin. There's the politician/party that's essentially a populist extreme right wing party that has around 40.000 supporters country wide, and it got that support banking on the vastly transparent populist message of "enough is enough! it's time to change things!"

My point? That I'm sure that a margin of that support is willingly given to just send a message to the current political establishment to change.

Except... you don't enact change by supporting an extremist.

Do you see the parallel here?

[Acidbaron]

Not voting for Biden does not mean you support Trump.

Directly it does not, indirectly it does.

Republicans benefit from lower voter turn out. Republicans benefit from division among the democrat base.
So the question can be phrased differently. What conditions can you contribute to increase the chances of the political ideologies you oppose from winning?

When it comes to winning an election these things matter, what this thread is about.

Now when it comes to changing the democrat leadership this is also done more efficiently from within the party especially when the current situation is so that democratic institutes are under attack in the US, if this was not the case i could agree that reforming the party could also happen when in opposition and one can actually already argue that this is already happening as younger people not tied to the old ways and old money are making waves such as AOC.

So Grimbold21 is correct it makes absolutely no sense to abstain yourself from voting with the risk of letting the situation deteriorate even more. As a Belgian i can't even understand the idea of not voting because voting here is mandatory and for a good reason, i mean people died to give you that option.

As stated earlier i also find that people who are okay with seeing their nation deteriorate further are those capable of wintering the storm, what is very selfish and very unpatriotic if you ask me.

[Truthtelling]

It is ironic that one who lacks nuance in their perspective chooses to frame their critics through one single lens. So, every person criticizing your stance is a conservative?

Those voting for a segregationist, a homophobe, a man in the pay of wall st, a man who opposed abortion his entire life, a man who cheerleaded for Bush's wars, yes those are conservatives. It is a simple point: you vote for whom you want elected.

I'm sure you think you are doing something terribly clever voting for that guy but we've been here before with Obama and Clinton and there was nothing terribly clever about the outcome: you simply ended up with the political center moving to the right.

[Truthtelling]

It is ironic that one who lacks nuance in their perspective chooses to frame their critics through one single lens. So, every person criticizing your stance is a conservative?

Those voting for a segregationist, a homophobe, a man in the pay of wall st, a man who opposed abortion his entire life, a man who cheerleaded for Bush's wars, yes those are conservatives. It is a simple point: you vote for who you want elected.

I'm sure you think you are doing something terribly clever voting for that guy but we've been here before with Obama and Clinton and there was nothing terribly clever about the outcome: you simply ended up with the political center moving to the right.