The GTP Unofficial 2020 US Elections Thread

[UKMikey]

I miss the good old days at GTPlanet where people could try to run a presidential candidate off the road or murder a governor they didn't like and nobody would call them out for it. This place has really gone to the dogs recently.

(I mean, outside of the White House, who the heck would not be in opposition to that?)

 

[McLaren]

He's literally endorsing harassment now regarding Trump supporters following Biden campaign bus.

In my opinion, these patriots did nothing wrong. Instead, the FBI & Justice should be investigating the terrorists, anarchists, and agitators of ANTIFA, who run around burning down our Democrat run cities and hurting our people!

 

[Keef]

I made a new Reddit account to troll the Conservative sub. I started by debunking an article which claimed a string of cars parked in Arizona which was 96 miles long included 170,000 cars. I did some basic math and found out only about 26,000 cars could reasonably fit within that space. The car demographic of small-town Arizona heavily favoring full-size trucks would make that number even smaller by a couple thousand.

My work continues.

 

[Daniel]

I made a new Reddit account to troll the Conservative sub. I started by debunking an article which claimed a string of cars parked in Arizona which was 96 miles long included 170,000 cars. I did some basic math and found out only about 26,000 cars could reasonably fit within that space. The car demographic of small-town Arizona heavily favoring full-size trucks would make that number even smaller by a couple thousand.

My work continues.

Have you been banned yet?

 

[Keef]

Have you been banned yet?

My main account already got banned. I'm throwing a little more fanfare into this one, kinda make it look like I'm on the fence but not a full blown Trumper.

 

[eran0004]

I made a new Reddit account to troll the Conservative sub. I started by debunking an article which claimed a string of cars parked in Arizona which was 96 miles long included 170,000 cars. I did some basic math and found out only about 26,000 cars could reasonably fit within that space. The car demographic of small-town Arizona heavily favoring full-size trucks would make that number even smaller by a couple thousand.

My work continues.

Well, there was one Vespa parked there as well, did you take that into account?

 

[huskeR32]

From what I understand Democrats opened the door to this scenario in 2013 by changing the 60 votes needed to confirm a SCOTUS justice to a simple majority.

This isn't quite true. In 2013, the Democrats enacted the "nuclear option" (reducing confirmation from 60 to 51 votes) for all judgeships except for SCOTUS. I'm not sure it wasn't warranted, either. The GOP members of the Senate had begun filibustering most of Obama's federal court appointees for seemingly no reason other than they were appointed by Obama. It was the beginning of what eventually led to 105 empty federal benches at the end of his presidency, and, of course, to the Merrick Garland nonsense.

Extending the nuclear option to SCOTUS nominations didn't happen until 2017, when the Republican majority did so in order to expedite the confirmation of Neil Gorsuch.

 

[Imari]

This isn't quite true. In 2013, the Democrats enacted the "nuclear option" (reducing confirmation from 60 to 51 votes) for all judgeships except for SCOTUS. I'm not sure it wasn't warranted, either. The GOP members of the Senate had begun filibustering most of Obama's federal court appointees for seemingly no reason other than they were appointed by Obama. It was the beginning of what eventually led to 105 empty federal benches at the end of his presidency, and, of course, to the Merrick Garland nonsense.

The problem is that introducing the nuclear option as a way to "solve" that doesn't really make the system work any better, it just makes it more brittle. It means that instead of compromise or nothing, whoever has the majority wins by default.

Really, you want the two parties to always have to compromise when it comes to judges, because it basically rules out the bench getting too lopsided. There are ways to force compromise if that's what was necessary, but turning it into a game of winner takes all was always going to end badly. Both parties have devolved into exploiting the rules to the maximum extent possible for short term gain, while ignoring the fact that the tactics that they're using are appallingly bad for the country in the long term.

 

[huskeR32]

The problem is that introducing the nuclear option as a way to "solve" that doesn't really make the system work any better, it just makes it more brittle. It means that instead of compromise or nothing, whoever has the majority wins by default.

Really, you want the two parties to always have to compromise when it comes to judges, because it basically rules out the bench getting too lopsided. There are ways to force compromise if that's what was necessary, but turning it into a game of winner takes all was always going to end badly. Both parties have devolved into exploiting the rules to the maximum extent possible for short term gain, while ignoring the fact that the tactics that they're using are appallingly bad for the country in the long term.

Yes, in an ideal world, that's exactly what you want. But when you look at the realities the Democrats were facing in 2013, compromise was already impossible. The Republicans had decided that they simply were not going to work with Obama on anything. This isn't speculation - just last month, McConnell went on Fox and boasted yet again about how many empty benches they forced Obama to leave behind.

Things were already broken before the Democrats enacted that change in 2013, but at least they recognized that including SCOTUS was a step too far.

Maybe I'm letting my bias get in the way too much here, so what do you think the Democrats should have done? The Republican party has no shame, there is no line they won't cross in their naked pursuit of power. Should that be allowed to just continue indefinitely?

 

[Dotini]

Yes, in an ideal world, that's exactly what you want. But when you look at the realities the Democrats were facing in 2013, compromise was already impossible. The Republicans had decided that they simply were not going to work with Obama on anything. This isn't speculation - just last month, McConnell went on Fox and boasted yet again about how many empty benches they forced Obama to leave behind.

Things were already broken before the Democrats enacted that change in 2013, but at least they recognized that including SCOTUS was a step too far.

Maybe I'm letting my bias get in the way too much here, so what do you think the Democrats should have done? The Republican party has no shame, there is no line they won't cross in their naked pursuit of power. Should that be allowed to just continue indefinitely?

When we look at the realities the US was facing after WWII, we find that the US has interfered in the elections of over 80 countries, assassinated elected foreign presidents, and toppled legally elected democracies. IMO, this was carried out by the CIA and State Department as a matter of policy and ideology, any laws and/or morality notwithstanding. Both parties are steeped in this. In his farewell address, President Eisenhower warned of the unwarranted power developing in the military-industrial complex. But he did nothing more than flap his gums, as the Dulles brothers and Angleton were really running the country under his administration, and nothing much was ever done about it. The domestic milieu we are in since, a dark mirror of the foreign policy, suggests that might makes right and the ends justify the means. I agree it should not be this way, and that it should change and not be allowed to continue indefinitely. But the question arises as to how. IMO, it will take something currently unimagined to do the job.

 

[Scaff]

Just leaving this here...

 

[MatskiMonk]

I'm curious to know who is leading the poll on this page at the moment?

 

[Famine]

Good to see that a bunch of delusional Trump voters are on the same level as a bunch of murderous Muslims.

And you even quoted the post.

But as long as it is the opposition, it's all fun and games. You guys are part of what makes GTP a **** place lately. Hypocrites.

Dismissing the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and ISIS/ISIL/IS/Da'esh as "murderous Muslims" rather underplays the analogy.

Islam may have been the core of their belief set, but it was simply the ideology on which their real goal was built. The real goal of all of these organisations was to create a nation or state under which there was no freedom to live or act in any manner counter to their vision of Islam. They sought to wipe out all non-Islamic (or non-their-Islamic) imagery, destroying monuments and works of art that had survived thousands of years through wars and invasions, they killed or branded those who did not believe or convert, and political opposition was simply not allowed. Simply put, it was fascism, clothed in Islam.

Now flash forward to Texas. You have a bunch of guys in white pick-up trucks waving flags and holding rifles, trying to force out a guy opposed to them politically with methods that could prove deadly, and telling people they'll vote for their guy whether they like it or not. I'm sure a decent proportion of them would also describe themselves as god-fearing, and would destroy artworks that say "Biden Harris 2020" on them. It's not exactly a giant step between them and the Taliban or Da'esh; the major differences between the Texas event and Islamic fundamentalists are that the Texans don't pray to the east four times a day, and, at least this time, nobody got killed.


Of course, for balance, you could easily apply several of the same statements to groups like Antifa. By ideology, being anti-fascist is a good thing - the core is you don't want to tell anyone else how to live their lives, and you'd prefer they gave you the same courtesy - but being anti-fascist and being Antifa are very different things. Antifa, or at least those who identify as capital-A Antifa (I'm vaguely aware there's no particular organised "Antifa" group) appears to go about being anti-fascist in largely fascist ways,. Certainly their destruction and defacement of monuments appear very much in line with the Taliban's methods. While the Reinoehl case eventually manifested as Donald Trump denying 5A protections even exist, it started with a Trump supporter being shot dead at a protest by, in all likelihood, someone identifying as Antifa. Killing those who don't believe or convert? Big fascism tick there.

I mean, there surely has to be a point when you're trying to ram on old guy's bus off the road because he's *checks notes* not quite as conservative as your preferred old guy, or when you're aiming a gun at someone because you don't think violence is an acceptable way to conduct politics, where you have to think to yourself...

 

[Imari]

Maybe I'm letting my bias get in the way too much here, so what do you think the Democrats should have done? The Republican party has no shame, there is no line they won't cross in their naked pursuit of power. Should that be allowed to just continue indefinitely?

No, but I don't think breaking the system further is particularly helpful. As you say, the Republicans will use whatever they can in pursuit of power, so introducing something like the nuclear option is just a red flag to a bull. The Republicans will also abuse it the first chance they get, once it's there. The only way it could have not backfired is if the Democrats immediately afterwards got sufficient control to change the fundamental systems to remove the need for the nuclear option, and if that was the case they could have just waited.

I think there are times where it's necessary to accept that you're in an undesirable position due to people legitimately using a flawed system in unintended ways, and that there may not be anything you can do to improve the situation without fundamentally altering the system. Short term band aids like the nuclear option may work as a once off solution to the 2013 problem, but at the cost of making the system even more broken in the long term. It ultimately means that the Democrats have power as the primary goal just like the Republicans do, and nobody is actually interested in providing good government.

Instead I'd suggest biding your time, continuing to put up compromise candidates that will be refused for no reason, and making sure that it's clear to everyone how the system is broken and that their rights and democracy is at stake if this is allowed to continue. Demonstrate clearly the flaws to the electorate, and make it obvious how a balanced system is an improvement for everyone regardless of party. If you can't do that then you might be 🤬 out of luck, because if the citizens don't actually want a fair and balanced government then there's really not much you can do to force it on them without becoming exactly what you fear.

And that may be exactly the problem. Some of the major flaws of the US governmental system have been obvious to both parties for decades, but haven't been fixed by anyone. At that point, who is really to blame when someone turns up and starts exploiting those flaws? By leaving these flaws in place, is that not an implicit admission that this is exactly how people want the system to work?

 

[Liquid]

I'm curious to know who is leading the poll on this page at the moment?

I clicked Other so I could see. (It's not untrue!)

 

[MatskiMonk]

I clicked Other so I could see. (It's not untrue!)

It'll be interesting to see if the GTP exit poll is more accurate for the USA than it was for the UK general election

 

[Blitz24]

I clicked Other so I could see. (It's not untrue!)

View attachment 968987

Considering you casted a vote for Giant Meteor....

 

[Liquid]

Um...

Spoiler

Raul Castro might still be around but it is inescapable that Fidel is the first name that comes to mind when you mention Castro.

 

[Famine]

(It's not untrue!)

It is, because you didn't vote for it.

It's an exit poll, which will close roughly 30 minutes after the polls close in the USA, and reveal its results.

 

[TexRex]

 

[McLaren]

threatened to... rape Mrs. McCloskey

Believe me, she would not be my first choice, that I can tell you. You don’t know. That would not be my first choice. Check out her Facebook, you’ll understand.

Other than that, what a fantasy land of irony.

 

[TorqueHappenS08]

I'm curious to know who is leading the poll on this page at the moment?

Biden is leading officially by 10 points.

 

[Adamgp]

Ended up taking a vacation day today and tried early voting. Took an hour and a half, but felt like it moved a lot faster than that.

At least I got it over with.

 

[Keef]

Update: Full 3-day ban from Reddit for circumventing a subreddit ban by creating an alternative account.

I don’t understand, I was just trying to cheat my way to victory?

 

[Joey D]

Update: Full 3-day ban from Reddit for circumventing a subreddit ban by creating an alternative account.

I don’t understand, I was just trying to cheat my way to victory?

I mean Reddit is controlled by the Chinese so you can't expect anything less. My proudest accomplishment is being banned from r/Sino for asking a question.

 

[McLaren]

Update: Full 3-day ban from Reddit for circumventing a subreddit ban by creating an alternative account.

I don’t understand, I was just trying to cheat my way to victory?

But, Reddit is a leftist think tank! Surely they would approve of you trolling conservatives!

Obligatory Reddit /s.

 

[Danoff]

Good to see that a bunch of delusional Trump voters are on the same level as a bunch of murderous Muslims.

It is terrorist so... at least on that level, yes they are comparable. On other levels, no they're not. Like for example they're not muslim, their techniques involve pickups... no wait that's similar, and nobody got killed (in this specific event)... wait not all fundamentalist islamic terrorism results in death... hang on... uh... at least this time, nobody attempted to kill anyone? Hmmm... actually I'm not entirely sure that statements is justified.

Ok so they're not muslim, that one for sure. And maybe also nobody attempted to kill anyone, that's possibly defensible.

But the rest of it, the fact that it was the use of violence and fear to obtain a chosen political outcome, that part is pretty spot on. So... yea, domestic terrorism then. Y'all Qaeda fits nicely. And no, just for reference, this does not mean that leftist violence is not also terrorism.

Edit:

Also, finding out that Trump does not condemn this, and actually seems to support it, is like a punch to the gut. I mean I knew he'd do something stupid like that, but there's a difference between it being expected and actually happening.

What the hell happened to America? The president is condoning running his political opponents off the road to silence them? I don't recognize this country.

Edit 2:

And this is the second time he's condoned terrorist actions against his political opponents. It's not a one-off, this is a pattern of using terrorism. Again, it's not just that right wingers are doing this, because obviously left wingers are doing horrible stuff too. It's that the President is supporting it, against his political opponents.

Unbelievable.

 

[jjaisli]

I still maintain a landline at home as I need it for my alarm system. But anybody who actually knows us, calls our cell phones. So when the landline rings, I know it's 95% robocall. I was a bit shocked though to hear the machine pick up and Trump's voice encouraging us vote. But here's what I don't get. If I was a Trump supporter, well, he'd already have my vote. And if I was firmly in Biden's camp, there probably isn't much he could say to sway me. Not at this point. But if I was still an undecided voter, there are probably better ways to encourage me to vote, and more specifically, vote for HIM than saying the same Dog & Pony show B.S. he spews at his Rallies for his indoctrinated cultists. I mean, really, WTH?

I suppose it fits. He's long since given up trying to govern anybody who didn't fall hook line and sinker for his ideology. But you'd think at this point, with what little money his campaign has left, it would be better spent trying to target people by stating what he can or could do for them instead of mouth foaming how "Radical Leftists are seeking to destroy America". Or perhaps this is a last ditch GOP effort to target their core who are so busy on their 23rd Facebook political rant of the day, that they may just FORGET to go out and vote.

 

[Hun200kmh]

Sorry, did you say "ideology" ?

 

[jjaisli]

Granted, team Trump may lack any definitive or clearly defined, comprehensive policy plan, but the word ideology still fits.

Steve's Bannon's original playbook was undoubtedly more elegant and nuanced, but I suspect Il Duce no. 2 had a tough time following the script. Hence the short version. Perhaps he has a crib note version of that one. With lots of pictures.