Mega-Thread: 2020 United States General Election

[Zaktar]

Hard disagree:

"We’re in the midst of a slow-motion unraveling of democracy in this country. If we don’t return the favor with some of this procedural war stuff, the only other option is to continue watching the other side do it. That’s not an acceptable option in my opinion.

I don’t think we can restore order by respecting rules that are not respected by Republicans. I do believe we’ll have to find a way to end this procedural war at some point, but now is not that time. Republicans need to know what it’s like to be on the other end of normative violations. The Republicans are behaving like a party that believes it will never be held accountable for anything they’re doing, and so far they haven’t been.

That has to change before we can fix this mess."

https://www.vox.com/2018/5/1/1725886...trump-election

Not sure why a David Faris quote on a different subject is meant to determine our thoughts on this one. He's talking about procedural battles. If you need a practical reason - in the hypothetical scenario we're talking about, such an allegation could cause a loss. Not everyone is as pragmatic as those of us opposed to Trump in this thread, some people would be severely disheartened by such a change to the facts on the ground, we need voters to participate.

[Felya]

The chain of conversation goes back to a hypothetical in which this gets worse, that the accusation becomes credible. A couple people have said, basically, that Trump is worse so oh well, too bad, so sad, we move on no matter what. If it's credible, his dropping out would be a solution which matches the scope of the problem. For the umpteenth time we're not there and probably won't get there, the story has reasonable doubt and is unlikely to get worse, which doesn't do much to change the math for the election.

That’s what hypotheticals get you and what the moral argument, when we have these two candidates, will result in. I know at least some people’s hearts are in the right place, but this is absurdist theater. This is not a case where not voting or third party, results in a candidate whose presidency won’t result in protecting from cases like this. If that’s the case, what’s the point? Do we look at a metric of which is more likely to offend or which is better policy wise? Because we know, all roads lead to........

So if you've followed the conversation I already said that if presented with the choice, even if the allegation becomes credible, I'll grudgingly vote for Biden. My only point is that if it becomes credible now he needs to drop out and give us the chance to pick a viable candidate.

what if he won’t... that’s the most likely scenario.

[Levelfive]

Not sure why a David Faris quote on a different subject is meant to determine our thoughts on this one. He's talking about procedural battles. If you need a practical reason - in the hypothetical scenario we're talking about, such an allegation could cause a loss. Not everyone is as pragmatic as those of us opposed to Trump in this thread, some people would be severely disheartened by such a change to the facts on the ground, we need voters to participate.

Disagree that it's a somehow a different subject when the subject is very specifically Democrats adhering to rules and norms that Republicans never subject themselves to, which, aside from enabling them to cheat their way into a gross imbalance of power in their favor, has led to the five-alarm fire we're now confronting, and Trump has put arsonists in charge of the fire department. He's an existential threat to Democracy.

This is triage.

[Zaktar]

That’s what hypotheticals get you and what the moral argument, when we have these two candidates, will result in. I know at least some people’s hearts are in the right place, but this is absurdist theater. This is not a case where not voting or third party, results in a candidate whose presidency won’t result in protecting from cases like this. If that’s the case, what’s the point? Do we look at a metric of which is more likely to offend or which is better policy wise? Because we know, all roads lead to........



what if he won’t... that’s the most likely scenario.

It's not a choice between third party and Biden - at this point we could select a different candidate, it isn't determined. You call it absurdist theater, but look... a week ago this story was an unfounded allegation which could safely be ignored. A few days ago it became a lot more solid. The future is always a number of hypotheticals, but this one has increased in probability and is worth having an honest conversation with ourselves about. Leaving the opposition to the concern trolls who dominate this thread doesn't seem right either. I don't really want to keep discussing it, but have a hard time stopping myself when people are saying that the best choice in the potential worst case scenario is to just look away and whistle. It's not. There are other, better options. After we've formally selected a nominee, there won't be, I agree.

[Dacien]

I've been bullish on Trump for quite some time now, but a Biden/Hillary ticket is actually a potent mix in my humble opinion. There are a lot of people that feel Hillary got robbed, and it will definitely drive people to vote.

I'm grateful that Stacey Abrams is insisting on VP, and apparently speaking with Washington power brokers to make it happen. That would be the death knell for Biden.

[Machismo]

You are fucking seriously defending a segregationist? Why is this conversation being had in 2020.

Perhaps you should have actually quoted the entire thing. You said it was longstanding, but that does not appear to be the case. Luckily, I provided the entire excerpt, so you can read more into it.

I also suggest you read his biography.

Enjoy!!!

- - - Updated - - -

I've been bullish on Trump for quite some time now, but a Biden/Hillary ticket is actually a potent mix in my humble opinion. There are a lot of people that feel Hillary got robbed, and it will definitely drive people to vote.

I'm grateful that Stacey Abrams is insisting on VP, and apparently speaking with Washington power brokers to make it happen. That would be the death knell for Biden.

Nobody for a second thinks you are being genuine.

I just mentioned categories of punditry, guess which you fall into?

[Machismo]

You posted a short extract. The full wikipedia article is much more damning. Essentially it paints him as a sociopathic liar who repeatedly indulged in plagiarism, consistently voted against gay rights, opposed abortion, cheerled for Bush's wars, and worked with some of the vilest racists of the 20th century. There's almost nothing good about Biden.

Any one can read the full thing here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden

The guy is a major-league asshole. No one with a soul or conscience should ever have voted for him.

I posted the entire part under where you provided the snipped. If you like, enjoy the whole shebang:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Biden

Enjoy!!!

So, who are you voting for in November?

[Machismo]

Forgive me but I don't think you really have any moral authority here. You are persistently attacking those who refuse to support Biden on the most absurd and personal grounds, when you don't even intend to do so yourself. Your attitude is almost textbook sophistry, or at least it would be if you were any good at it.

You are forgiven. I simply chalk it up to you being brand new here, so you probably don't know.

I do not support Biden, nor will I be voting for him. I will most likely vote for Justin Amash. How about you, who will you be voting for?

[Machismo]

You seem to think the civil rights era is somehow amusing. I don't really know what you are doing here but that combined with your intense xenophobia suggests to me you are some kind of backwoods racist. Either way, you are very tedious.

I'm calling you out on your questionable rhetoric and decision to cherry pick a source.

Racism is bad, mmmkay. So is xenophobia, so I'm not sure how you are able to construe that I'm being xenophobic. After all, I believe everyone is welcome in my country, the more the merrier. I support ending immigration restrictions... so exactly how is that xenophobic?

Perhaps you were thinking of a different word.

[Themius]

You are forgiven. I simply chalk it up to you being brand new here, so you probably don't know.

I do not support Biden, nor will I be voting for him. I will most likely vote for Justin Amash. How about you, who will you be voting for?

A throwaway vote... why?

[Machismo]

A throwaway vote... why?

Because, I'm a small-government conservative. Unlike the "progressives" there isn't a major candidate who is anywhere close to my political beliefs.

Besides, thanks to the fucking Electoral College, I live in a state that Biden will win by 30 points, regardless of how I vote.

[Themius]

Because, I'm a small-government conservative. Unlike the "progressives" there isn't a major candidate who is anywhere close to my political beliefs.

Besides, thanks to the fucking Electoral College, I live in a state that Biden will win by 30 points, regardless of how I vote.

You think you're a small government conservative... you are must more than that going you your posts.

[Machismo]

You think you're a small government conservative... you are must more than that going you your posts.

Yes, yes I am. My fundamental principles are individual liberty, limited government, and the free markets. I know those don't always apply to conservatism in the American sense, but then again, America has long screwed up those terms.

[arandomuser]

MAGA AND BERNIE TWITTER: AHA biden said economic intercourse aha shows he has dementia! we got him guys! haha im very smart

Google


oh and literally fox news ran it as a story https://www.foxnews.com/politics/joe...ound-the-world ..when joe bidens use of the word was literally correct, and its being shared by bernie bros too, i use to consider myself on the left and even far left but the bernie bros have really turned me off, guess im a dirtbag neoliberal that cares about accuracy

[Dacien]

Because, I'm a small-government conservative. Unlike the "progressives" there isn't a major candidate who is anywhere close to my political beliefs.

Besides, thanks to the fucking Electoral College, I live in a state that Biden will win by 30 points, regardless of how I vote.

I don't think I've ever seen a conservative position you haven't criticized harshly. Jennifer Rubin vibe.

[Machismo]

I don't think I've ever seen a conservative position you haven't criticized harshly.

That's because you Trumpsters aren't actually conservatives. You push national socialism and authoritarianism. That's why your homeboy Trump increased spending, increased the deficits, and raised taxes numerous times. That's why the bigots wanted to ban gay marriage. It's why they want to force trans-vaginal ultrasounds on women, and regulate businesses to death.

Don't blame me, because you guys stopped being conservatives. Don't blame me, because you embraced national socialism. Don't blame me, because you prioritized party over principle.

[Dacien]

That's because you Trumpsters aren't actually conservatives. You push national socialism and authoritarianism. That's why your homeboy Trump increased spending, increased the deficits, and raised taxes numerous times. That's why the bigots wanted to ban gay marriage. It's why they want to force trans-vaginal ultrasounds on women, and regulate businesses to death.

Don't blame me, because you guys stopped being conservatives. Don't blame me, because you embraced national socialism. Don't blame me, because you prioritized party over principle.

I think you conflate conservatism and Trumpism on purpose.

[Machismo]

I think you conflate conservatism and Trumpism on purpose.

Well, maybe you Trumpsters shouldn't have aligned yourselves with a national socialist.

Where were you when he jacked up the budget?

Where were you when the deficits skyrocketed?

Where were you when he spouted racist bullshit?

Where were you when he attacked American businesses and consumers?

Where were you when he put a fucking white supremacist in charge of immigration policy?

[Edge-]

I think you conflate conservatism and Trumpism on purpose.

For the modern Republican party, is there much of a difference? Because they seem to have full throatedly embraced Trumpism and stopped pretending that they cared about things like the deficit, small government, or free-market capitalism.

[Dacien]

For the modern Republican party, is there much of a difference? Because they seem to have full throatedly embraced Trumpism and stopped pretending that they cared about things like the deficit, small government, or free-market capitalism.

That's fair, but there is a large swath of Republicans who divide over the conservatism/Trumpsim split. It's a thing.