• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

2020 Presidential Election

Status
Not open for further replies.
kookbreaker said:
Didn't Bernie Sanders draw bigger crowds than anyone in the past 10 years?

Hey! Guess what amounts to at the ballot box!
Click to expand...

I was surprised to see how critical maintaining the notion of a mandate of support is to politics. It is like something prevents a person from saying, "we are less popular, but will enact our agenda anyways." There is some deeply held need to feel popular.
 
Skeptic Tank said:
The whole country is no longer legitimate
Click to expand...

Just to single this out, what makes a country legitimate in your eyes?



BobTheCoward said:
I was surprised to see how critical maintaining the notion of a mandate of support is to politics. It is like something prevents a person from saying, "we are less popular, but will enact our agenda anyways." There is some deeply held need to feel popular.
Click to expand...

I think that focusing on "feeling popular" there is to get distracted by a shiny tangent of little relevance.
 
Skeptic Tank said:
Don't know if he'll win the popular vote, probably not. After all, there's been a very deliberate and very successful effort to expand the citizenry to include a ton of people who have no business being here and reliably vote against what the legacy Americans desire.

I believe he lost the popular vote in 2016 and probably will again.

He's a disappointment in many ways but I still hope he wins. I also would approve of any and all methods of maintaining power no matter the election outcome. The whole country is no longer legitimate, and from here on out I am in favor of my side winning by whatever means. As in, if he can pull some sort of lawyer maneuvers, bring the ballots into question, whatever - I say go for it.
Click to expand...

Quoting for all our resident fence-sitters and so-called moderates who pollute every political discussion with cynical and misguided bothsidesism.

Read the post above very carefully.

This is what we’re up against.

This same poster, by the way, has also openly advocated for the mass murders of protestors at the hands of the police.

And if you think this viewpoint is an outlier, you’re fooling yourself.

There is a disturbingly large faction of people in this country who hold these exact same cancerous ideals. These people are currently showing up to polling places armed with AK-47s and driving around in caravans running people off the road.

The next time you log into this forum to do some hand-wringing over Twitter mobs or statue vandalism, go back and read the post above again to remind yourself where the true threat lies.
 
johnny karate said:
Quoting for all our resident fence-sitters and so-called moderates who pollute every political discussion with cynical and misguided bothsidesism.

Read the post above very carefully.

This is what we’re up against.

This same poster, by the way, has also openly advocated for the mass murders of protestors at the hands of the police.

And if you think this viewpoint is an outlier, you’re fooling yourself.

There is a disturbingly large faction of people in this country who hold these exact same cancerous ideals. These people are currently showing up to polling places armed with AK-47s and driving around in caravans running people off the road.

The next time you log into this forum to do some hand-wringing over Twitter mobs or statue vandalism, go back and read the post above again to remind yourself where the true threat lies.
Click to expand...

The true threat? Lol

My attitude about this country is a reaction to what the other side has done to it. The other side are a bunch of mentally ill anarchists and they have been burning down countless cities for months. They violently attack people they can identify as, or just suspect of being, on the other side politically. They also just assault people for not being openly, forcefully on board with whatever they're pushing.

They want to get rid of police. They openly hate people for being white and hate this country and its history. They openly talk about disenfranchising and punishing people for being white.

Then I come along and say "this country has gone nuts and the whole thing is made illegitimate by these people's influence on the system, do whatever it takes to deny these lunatics power" and that makes me the "true threat?"

Bonkers.
 
The polls are going to be proven wrong again.

Except, this time in, the polls will have underestimated Biden's lead, and consequent win.

More young people are voting than 2016 - they are more energised and more of them will vote, not through any connection to Joe, but because they really dislike the orange thing in the WH.

I know a lot of Generation Z & Millennial kids, because that's my kids' age group, and one thing they're terrible at is answering the phone, unless they know the caller's number. When pollsters call, I'm prepared to bet that the number of youthful voters who don't answer are skewing the results of polling in favour of Trump.

Not only that, millions of kids have turned 18 since 2016, while hundreds of thousands of Trump-friendly Boomers and Silent Generation have croaked, and it's clear that younger voters are more likely to be socially responsible and "woke" and therefore vote blue.

One. More. Day.
 
Aridas said:
The really sad thing about that is that that's only a tiny escalation from the 2018 rhetoric. Tiny, as in the "after election night" specific time limit part. They were screaming bloody murder as the red mirage vanished in a lot of races and claiming that counting legitimately cast ballots in the first place meant that Democrats were stealing elections.







To poke at that -



Scoop: Trump's plan to declare premature victory







Yeah. To be clear about my thoughts on it -



Terrorism definition from googling the word terrorism - "the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims."



What happened there was terrorism. Brazen terrorism. And it needs to be punished and stopped sooner, rather than later.







... snip. m. .
Click to expand...

We will probably hear that like not rape rape, this is not terrorism terrorism.
 
I could be wrong, but I think what Trump is saying is that Trump is could be preparing to concede on election night if he is behind Biden in votes.
 
Last edited:
I could be wrong but I think what Trump is saying is that Trump is prepared to concede on election night if he is behind in the election count.
 
Skeptic Tank said:
The true threat? Lol

My attitude about this country is a reaction to what the other side has done to it. The other side are a bunch of mentally ill anarchists and they have been burning down countless cities for months. They violently attack people they can identify as, or just suspect of being, on the other side politically. They also just assault people for not being openly, forcefully on board with whatever they're pushing.

They want to get rid of police. They openly hate people for being white and hate this country and its history. They openly talk about disenfranchising and punishing people for being white.

Then I come along and say "this country has gone nuts and the whole thing is made illegitimate by these people's influence on the system, do whatever it takes to deny these lunatics power" and that makes me the "true threat?"

Bonkers.
Click to expand...

Yes, bonkers indeed.

Anyway, here’s you openly advocating for state-sanctioned mass murder:
Skeptic Tank said:
I wish the police were just straight up opening fire on these groups of protestors at this point
Click to expand...
 
The Atheist said:
The polls are going to be proven wrong again.

Except, this time in, the polls will have underestimated Biden's lead, and consequent win.

More young people are voting than 2016 -
Click to expand...

This is what gives me hope for tomorrow.*

I've been talking about how I think there's a systemic error in favor of Biden in the polls, due to hostile Trump voters not talking to pollsters. Opposite that, there is what appears to be record voter turnout. Polls aren't really polls anymore. They are survey data that is then weighted to form an esitmate of the result. What I'm hoping is that the "weights" are incorrect because they are based on typical election turnout.

Based on early voting data, election turnout is expected to be very high. I'm hoping that the polls/estimates are wrong because they underestimate the turnout in anti-Trump voting blocks. If that happens, your prediction will be true. Biden's margin of victory will be bigger than it appears, and it will be an electoral college landslide.

If I were a betting man, though, I don't think it will happen. My official prediction as of this moment is that Biden wins with 270 electoral votes. All the "swing states" identified at 538 go to Trump, plus Pennsylvania. That leaves Biden with 270.

And on what do I base that on? Nothing. Just a hunch. A feel. My predictions are utterly useless, but we're here, and talking, and it's fun to put out predictions, even if we aren't supposed to be having fun.

*That is, the literal tomorrow, Tuesday, November 3. As for the broader tomorrow, i.e. hope for the future, I work with today's kids in Robotics. Based on my interactions with them, I fear for our future, but I'll do what I can.
 
Last edited:
johnny karate said:
Yes, bonkers indeed.

Anyway, here’s you openly advocating for state-sanctioned mass murder:
Click to expand...

You really think it's that crazy / beyond the pale to say "okay we have anarchists burning our cities down, blocking the roadways, and attacking citizens viciously - authorize the cops and military to shoot them"

???

That is like, civilization 101
 
TheSupermeerkat said:
Brit here. What would it take for that to happen, to remove an ammendment?
Click to expand...
To actually REMOVE an amendment (as in, it is no longer part of the constitution)?

Agreed to by both the house and senate (by more than just a majority), and ratified by 3/4ths of the states. (Its an onerous process, and I doubt it would pass, since it would require at least some republican strongholds to agree.)

However, in theory the democrats could pass restrictions on gun ownership... waiting periods for purchases, strict licensing requirements, limits on the type of firearms that could be purchased. The second amendment would still exist, but some gun owners would be unhappy.
 
TheSupermeerkat said:
Brit here. What would it take for that to happen, to remove an ammendment?
Click to expand...

What slyjoe said, but to ampilfy on the process:

A new, proposed amendment has to pass the House and the Senate with a 2/3 vote in each chamber. Then, state legislatures in 3/4 of the states have to approve it.


There are a couple of other ways it could happen, but the process above is the only one that has ever actually been followed. The other procedures are equally difficult. Basically, it is deliberately difficult to push an amendment through.

(Ninja'd)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom