America - The Official Thread

[Danoff]

The only solution I can think of is that they'd postponed the election by say, six months, to give the replacements time to run a campaign.

I see what you did there.

 

[Joey D]

I see what you did there.

I wonder what happens if Trump wins and wins by say a huge (UUUUGEEE) number? He's already planted the idea that this election is going to fraudulent, but if he wins, doesn't that mean it's due to fraud. Someone on his team isn't thinking this through and if could very well come back to bite him.

 

[Danoff]

I wonder what happens if Trump wins and wins by say a huge (UUUUGEEE) number? He's already planted the idea that this election is going to fraudulent, but if he wins, doesn't that mean it's due to fraud. Someone on his team isn't thinking this through and if could very well come back to bite him.

The people who believe him about fraud are still going to believe him when he says it isn't when he's elected. It's only fraud when it's not your preferred outcome.

 

[McLaren]

I wonder what happens if Trump wins and wins by say a huge (UUUUGEEE) number? He's already planted the idea that this election is going to fraudulent, but if he wins, doesn't that mean it's due to fraud. Someone on his team isn't thinking this through and if could very well come back to bite him.

I'm pretty sure he's already said if he wins, it won't be fraud. Not directly of course, but in his usual way of speaking like, "Of course I'll accept the election outcome, but you know it's going to be filled with fraud for the Dems".

 

[Biggles]

The Oliver video talks about adding DC and Puerto Rico to the states in the union. I don't think NY would get up in arms. I don't know if populous states have ever gotten upset about the makeup of the Senate, but it wouldn't do them much good as the composition of the senate is what it is. Honestly I don't know the answer to your question.

Yes - I've heard the discussion about Puerto Rico & DC. It would presumably tilt the balance of power irrevocably towards the Democrats ... but that's my point: I can't imagine such a move would take place without concerted opposition from the Republicans. So, how did it happen in the past that states were added to the Union? The composition of the senate "is what it is" only because of the addition of new states & in the long term those additions contributed to the very unequal representation of populations in the senate (even though at the time it might not have been that obvious that that would happen in the way it did). The unrepresentative nature of the US senate has really significant ramifications for life in the US ... as we can see now with Trump appointing justices to the SCOTUS (& lower courts).

I use the example of Quebec in Canada to demonstrate how this problem can play out in different country. Successive governments of Quebec have refused to sign on to the federal constitution for decades because it doesn't meet all their expectations ... even though not signing has minimal effect on day-today life in Quebec. They simply can't accept relinquishing the possibility of making a "better deal". So ... I'm wondering how the "deal making" played out in the creation of new states. Surely it must have been contentious at the time, in the same way that making DC & Puerto Rico states would be extremely contentious now?

 

[McLaren]

The only solution I can think of is that they'd postponed the election by say, six months, to give the replacements time to run a campaign.

This is how a friend on another forum explained it to someone else wondering if Trump will call for a delay.

Won't fly. If he can't execute his duties the remedy is the 25th amendment. There is no cause, nor precedent, to delay the election. Nor is it the decision of the President. It is the decision of Congress, which will never pass with a split Congress. If Trump can't stand, Pence can. If, somehow, no one is elected by Jan 20, the Constitution most likely leads to the President Pro Tem of the Senate, who on Jan 20, 2021 is likely to be a Democrat.

 

[Danoff]

Yes - I've heard the discussion about Puerto Rico & DC. It would presumably tilt the balance of power irrevocably towards the Democrats ... but that's my point: I can't imagine such a move would take place without concerted opposition from the Republicans. So, how did it happen in the past that states were added to the Union? The composition of the senate "is what it is" only because of the addition of new states & in the long term those additions contributed to the very unequal representation of populations in the senate (even though at the time it might not have been that obvious that that would happen in the way it did). The unrepresentative nature of the US senate has really significant ramifications for life in the US ... as we can see now with Trump appointing justices to the SCOTUS (& lower courts).

I use the example of Quebec in Canada to demonstrate how this problem can play out in different country. Successive governments of Quebec have refused to sign on to the federal constitution for decades because it doesn't meet all their expectations ... even though not signing has minimal effect on day-today life in Quebec. They simply can't accept relinquishing the possibility of making a "better deal". So ... I'm wondering how the "deal making" played out in the creation of new states. Surely it must have been contentious at the time, in the same way that making DC & Puerto Rico states would be extremely contentious now?

It looks like Alaska and Hawaii were expected to lean opposite ways politically. So they were like bargaining chips against each other.

 

[huskeR32]

I wonder what happens if Trump wins and wins by say a huge (UUUUGEEE) number? He's already planted the idea that this election is going to fraudulent, but if he wins, doesn't that mean it's due to fraud. Someone on his team isn't thinking this through and if could very well come back to bite him.

He hasn't simply planted the idea that the election is going to be fraudulent, though. He's planted the idea that any fraudulent votes will be for the Democrats. So, if he wins, it was just because he won enough votes to overcome the fraud. And, despite the utter lack of evidence, every single one of his Kool-Aid drinkers swallowed every drop. The argument is already over and won in their minds.

 

[Dennisch]

It wouldn't be a good thing if COVID ran through our entire government

 

[Danoff]

He hasn't simply planted the idea that the election is going to be fraudulent, though. He's planted the idea that any fraudulent votes will be for the Democrats. So, if he wins, it was just because he won enough votes to overcome the fraud. And, despite the utter lack of evidence, every single one of his Kool-Aid drinkers swallowed every drop. The argument is already over and won in their minds.

[sarcasm]
The mere act of voting for other than republican candidates makes you sub-human. You're not entitled to a vote if you cast it incorrectly. You don't get a say in government if what you want to say is "leftist". Voting "leftist" is automatically fraudulent, because it's the wrong vote. You do not need to listen to people who think differently than you do as long as you think "normally".

It doesn't matter whether you think a "leftist" vote can be disregarded because it's from someone with the wrong skin color, place of birth, place of residence, via the wrong means (such as the mail), or if it's just because that person has the wrong ideas.

This is why we need an authoritarian president. Because we have to "dominate" the unrest caused by disenfranchising "leftists".
[/sarcasm]

 

[TexRex]

He's the POTUS so without a doubt he'd get the bestest care available and he'd be able to beat it without too much problem. Imagine how much more belligerent he'd get with it afterwards. He's already rather loose with his application with the masks, so I can already see him come out and say, "Oh hey look at me, I beat it so can you."

And his ever devout Trumpsters who also happen to be avid CoVid deniers will now have even more 'ammunition'

"Insufferable" likely won't be a strong enough word for post-recovery Trump.

The chairwoman of the Republican National Committee, Ronna McDaniel, has also tested positive for coronavirus.

https://www.nytimes.com/live/2020/1...of-the-rnc-tests-positive-for-the-coronavirus

Now even Ronna has the 'rona...

Obesity surely complicates matters.

 

[Biggles]

It looks like Alaska and Hawaii were expected to lean opposite ways politically. So they were like bargaining chips against each other.

Well, the weird thing about that (according to that article), is that Alaska was expected to vote Democrat, while Hawaii was expected to vote Republican. Regardless ... it's a very odd system that bestows political power in such a seemingly haphazard way within an ostensibly logical & carefully designed framework. That's the part that's hard to understand ... & it's explained by a lot of Americans as being because the United States is a Republic, not a democracy .. which frankly doesn't make any sense at all.

 

[mustafur]

if the Donald dies do we get a zombie government?

 

[ryzno]

if the Donald dies do we get a zombie government?

No, you get a Pence government.

 

[JKgo]

"Insufferable" likely won't be a strong enough word for post-recovery Trump.

...I'd like to also add "smug" on the list of applicable adjectives for describing "see, I told you so" Trump.

 

[Biggles]

No, you get a Pence government.

Same thing?

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

No, you get a Pence government.

No way Trump lets Pence take over. He would definitely re-animate.

 

[TexRex]

...I'd like to also add "smug" on the list of applicable adjectives for describing "see, I told you so" Trump.

And that's another word for which we'll need to find a suitable replacement.

 

[Danoff]

Trump is experiencing mild symptoms.

 

[UKMikey]

Despite not being a biblical man I mentioned Revelation 13 before with reference to the US president but would like to draw attention to verse 3 in relation to current events in case Trump chooses to capitalise on his nodoubt imminent recovery from Covid.

I saw that one of the heads of the beast seemed wounded beyond recovery—but the fatal wound was healed! The whole world marveled at this miracle and gave allegiance to the beast.

 

[TB]

And that's another word for which we'll need to find a suitable replacement.

Trumpenheimer.

 

[andrea]

What an adorable family.

Every single one of them is that character in a zombie film who hides their bite.

 

[Danoff]

Every single one of them is that character in a zombie film who hides their bite.

I think that might actually be playing out almost literally.

 

[andrea]

Lol she hates her life so much

 

[Joey D]

I share her sentiment about Xmas decorations.

 

[Danoff]

Lol she hates her life so much

War on Christmas, etc. etc. Yea I think that's a fair point.

 

[Biggles]

Lol she hates her life so much

Give her a break! She's married to Donald Trump.

 

[andrea]

Give her a break! She's married to Donald Trump.

My immediate thought is that they truly do deserve each other.

 

[Touring Mars]

Joe Biden has tested negative for coronavirus today.

This only goes to reaffirm that standing at least 15 ft away from Donald Trump at all times is a wise move.

 

[Danoff]

Joe Biden has tested negative for coronavirus today.

This only goes to reaffirm that standing at least 15 ft away from Donald Trump at all times is a wise move.

That's funny. But seriously, he's not out of the woods based on this right? The debate was the tuesday in the evening. It hasn't even been 72 hours.