The GTP Unofficial 2020 US Elections Thread

[ryzno]

The royal families have almost no political power.

That's even worse! What's the point in having them except for them to waste tax money on their lavish lifestyle?

 

[Biggles]

Looking at the whole Brexit debacle, I think we're fine with 2. They have what? 6? And from my PoV it looks like their government is literally falling apart.
Can't say the same for us.

Edit: I know, I know, there's more to the Brexit debacle...

Really? It's hard to see how having more political parties is a bad thing. Looking at the US it really doesn't appear as though you're "fine" with two. There are, of course, other political parties in the US, but the strangle hold of the two parties on the political system seems to be unshakeable.

Brexit is a weird anomaly. The PM decided to go to a plebiscite for largely strategic political reasons, something not traditionally part of the British system. The consequences of that decision is what has led to the debacle.

 

[PocketZeven]

That's even worse! What's the point in having them except for them to waste tax money on their lavish lifestyle?

There is no point. It's symbolic and a waste of tax money. Yet many people love their monarchs. Their basically overpaid mascots. It's something an american probably will never understand.

 

[McLaren]

Going 3rd party under America's system is probably the stupidest thing you can do, It will split the vote and the other party will win 100% of the time.

Cool, so you're saying the Republican candidates should do it.

Here is a map of each Districts favoured Candidate based on Donations, the Bottom map is when Sanders is taken off the list as he dominates the map.
View attachment 848953

Map doesn't mean anything if it's based on donations. Warren/Biden more than likely, are easily self-sustaining their own runs than Bernie.

I think the first map is full of it as well. I see a lot more support for Bernie than I do Beto in the state, esp. if the rest of the US is donating so heavily to Bernie. Beto will never win Texas' support for Presidency anyway when he makes comments that you will have to sell your rifles back to the government. Wrong state to push that narrative.

 

[mustafur]

Cool, so you're saying the Republican candidates should do it.

Map Doesn't mean anything if it's based on donations. Warren/Biden more than likely, are easily self-sustaining their own runs than Bernie.

I think the first map is full of it as well. I see a lot more support for Bernie than I do Beto in the state, esp. if the rest of the US is donating so heavily to Bernie. Beto will never win Texas' support for Presidency anyway when he makes comments that you will have to sell your rifles back to the government. Wrong state to push that narrative.

Based on what, it's based on number of people donating, not money.

Bernie is destroying every other candidate when it comes to individual donations, and the gap is getting bigger.

 

[McLaren]

View attachment 849165

That was more a joke since you said the other side wins. The Republicans go Independent from Trump, split the vote, Trump loses.

Based on what, it's based on number of people donating, not money.

Bernie is destroying every other candidate when it comes to individual donations, and the gap is getting bigger.

Good thing you linked the article then explaining it.

Mr. Sanders is relying heavily on small donors to power his campaign, and he entered the 2020 race with a huge network of online donors who supported his 2016 presidential bid. The map above shows the breadth of Mr. Sanders’s roster of donors across the United States.

A map that includes the rest of the Democratic field without Mr. Sanders offers a picture of where the other major candidates are picking up donors. Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, the other leading progressive in the race, is outpacing the rest of the field across much of the country — a sign that her strategy of relying on grass-roots donors, and refraining from holding high-dollar fund-raisers, is working.

Bernie has the backers from 4 years ago. Warren picks who she'll accept donations from. Pretty important things to note than just posting 2 graphs.

 

[Joey D]

Going 3rd party under America's system is probably the stupidest thing you can do, It will split the vote and the other party will win 100% of the time.

Nah. Voting for someone because they have either an R or D after their name without knowing what they stand for is probably the stupidest thing you can do. This is how we end up with choices like Trump and Clinton with one of them ultimately winning. If people took 5 minutes to look over the candidates and see what they actually stand for instead of just assuming whatever based on their party, our politicians would probably be better.

 

[mustafur]

That was more a joke since you said the other side wins. The Republicans go Independent from Trump, split the vote, Trump loses.

Good thing you linked the article then explaining it.

Bernie has the backers from 4 years ago. Warren picks who she'll accept donations from. Pretty important things to note than just posting 2 graphs.

They both do that though, well except for the fact Warren said she will take big Donors if she wins the nomination.

Nah. Voting for someone because they have either an R or D after their name without knowing what they stand for is probably the stupidest thing you can do. This is how we end up with choices like Trump and Clinton with one of them ultimately winning. If people took 5 minutes to look over the candidates and see what they actually stand for instead of just assuming whatever based on their party, our politicians would probably be better.

I get what your saying, but going by reality it's flawed because of the first past the post system in place in America and the EC.
If a Major candidate where to defect to a independent it will split the vote and the opposing party that least aligns with both will win Everytime.

The best way to get what you want sadly is to vote the right person in the party primary system, until there is a new voting system this is the only way because the two major parties have this on lockdown.

 

[Novalee]

i cant see the election going the gop way if mr trump keeps inviting terrorists to meetings in usa .
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trum...n-to-us-camp-david_n_5d7435b6e4b07521022d7643

 

[Northstar]

I agree, we should just stick to drone strikes that kill countless innocents instead of trying to solve our problems diplomatically!

 

[ryzno]

Too bad he never talked to them.

 

[UKMikey]

That's even worse! What's the point in having them except for them to waste tax money on their lavish lifestyle?

I'm no royalist but spending 86 million pounds to make up to 550 million sounds like good maths to me.

Too bad he never talked to them.

Why did he invite them, then? To just stare across a desk at them? What's too bad is that he had to keep the meeting secret, presumably because otherwise it'd play badly with the more hawkish of his supporters.

 

[ryzno]

Did anyone read the article?

 

[Imari]

I agree, we should just stick to drone strikes that kill countless innocents instead of trying to solve our problems diplomatically!

From the article:

“I immediately cancelled the meeting and called off peace negotiations,” the president said “What kind of people would kill so many in order to seemingly strengthen their bargaining position?”

Oh, oh, I know the answer!

America. America is the kind of people that would kill 12 in order to strengthen their bargaining position. Hell, America runs extrajudicial torture facilities to strengthen their bargaining position.

You'd think that the US and the Taliban would get along great together. They have a lot in common. They're both willing to use force to install governments that they consider to be friendly. It's just that the Taliban want to do it in their home country, whereas the US overthrows foreign governments. But I'm sure that the Taliban could get on board with that, it's really much the same sort of thing.

 

[PocketZeven]

I'm no royalist but spending 86 million pounds to make up to 550 million sounds like good maths to me.

Why did he invite them, then? To just stare across a desk at them? What's too bad is that he had to keep the meeting secret, presumably because otherwise it'd play badly with the more hawkish of his supporters.

It is highly unlikely the dutch monarchs bring in that much tourism though.

 

[ryzno]

I'm no royalist but spending 86 million pounds to make up to 550 million sounds like good maths to me.

Why did he invite them, then? To just stare across a desk at them? What's too bad is that he had to keep the meeting secret, presumably because otherwise it'd play badly with the more hawkish of his supporters.

From your link...

But there is no way to know exactly how much the Royal Family influences the number of people who choose to visit the UK.

I'll take that with a grain of salt.

 

[PocketZeven]

From your link...

I'll take that with a grain of salt.

If you think about how much money tabloids, entertainment programs, movies, TV-shows, merchandise bring in. I would say its on the low end.

 

[Novalee]

http://huffp.st/RzHxLMv


this here wont be helping the gop win in 2020. if noaa did not bend to trumps will would the republicans have crucified the noaa wistleblowers ?

should be a real wingding of an election in 2020

 

[Keef]

I'm not voting for the Libertarian party or any third-party at the national level anymore.

It's become clear that one party in particular has spent decades rigging the system in its favor and I believe it's heading down a dangerous road quicker than anybody is going to catch it. We need a figurehead who isn't a moronic, hateful fascist and we need it now. Somebody who will actually calm things down, talk some sense, be professional, be respectful, and perhaps even reverse the hatred that the entire planet has for the US.

I have no idea who the Democratic candidate will be and I don't really give a crap as long as Trump doesn't win. His candidacy was a joke but his actual presidency is beyond belief. I will vote for literally anybody who isn't in the Republican party at this point.

That said, my favorite Democrat is Buttegieg because he's reasonable.

 

[mustafur]

That said, my favorite Democrat is Buttegieg because he's reasonable.

I thought You wanted Money out of politics?

This contradicts that big time.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ny.../politics/pete-buttigieg-fundraising.amp.html

https://publicintegrity.org/federal-politics/pete-buttigieg-mayor-indiana-money-lobbyists/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cn...up-donations-from-wall-street-executives.html

 

[Keef]

I thought You wanted Money out of politics?

This contradicts that big time.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ny.../politics/pete-buttigieg-fundraising.amp.html

https://publicintegrity.org/federal-politics/pete-buttigieg-mayor-indiana-money-lobbyists/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cn...up-donations-from-wall-street-executives.html

Wouldn't that be nice? But it's impossible to win without paying for it. He's doing a combination of small and large donors and is matching pace with Bernie - who has been on fire for years - and Biden, who is the one focusing on major donors.

I don't think Biden will win but if Bernie or Warren gets the nomination I would happily vote for them. Because they're not assholes.

 

[mustafur]

Wouldn't that be nice? But it's impossible to win without paying for it. He's doing a combination of small and large donors and is matching pace with Bernie - who has been on fire for years - and Biden, who is the one focusing on major donors.

I don't think Biden will win but if Bernie or Warren gets the nomination I would happily vote for them. Because they're not assholes.

Bernie, Warren, Yang and Gabbard(in order of Polling) are only doing Small Individual Donors, Buttigieg might have a good talking game but he speaks for money interests just like Biden that's why everything is watered down.

Personally I think Biden is getting senile and it's showing in badly as it is, but I think him and Sanders will be the biggest chances at getting the nomination, Warren is struggling massively with Black and younger voters which will hurt her massively in the South.

Buttigieg and Harris have been polling downwards for awhile now and Yang is slowly growing.

 

[McLaren]

i cant see the election going the gop way if mr trump keeps inviting terrorists to meetings in usa .
https://www.huffpost.com/entry/trum...n-to-us-camp-david_n_5d7435b6e4b07521022d7643

This description of the article is the equivalent of the old, "Obama lets terrorists go back to their homes for nothing" tripe. Read it.

Before the Kabul bombing, U.S. envoy Zalmay Khalilzad announced that the U.S. had reached an agreement with the Taliban “on principle.” Khalilzad reportedly rushed back to Qatar, where his negotiations with the Taliban had taken place, after the attack.

Trump has long been a proponent of withdrawing the U.S. from Afghanistan. The recent peace talks between U.S. diplomats and the Taliban, which were reportedly close to a resolution, were part of those efforts, according to The New York Times.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said Sunday that the Taliban had made an unprecedented agreement with the U.S. to break with al Qaeda, commit to “certain reductions in violence” and meet with Afghan leaders.

He said peace negotiations are on hold for now but that the president is willing to restart them if the Taliban delivers on “the promises that they’ve made.”

“If it’s not right, if it’s not protecting the American people, if the conditions aren’t appropriate on the ground and proper to protect America, we’re not going to enter into any deal,” Pompeo said during an appearance on CNN’s “State of the Union.”

You seem to imply the President just willy nilly decided to up and invite terrorists to the US without any plan, despite your article displaying above this has been an on-going thing and it was cancelled because the terrorists did not meet their requirements.

 

[Imari]

I thought You wanted Money out of politics?

This contradicts that big time.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ny.../politics/pete-buttigieg-fundraising.amp.html

https://publicintegrity.org/federal-politics/pete-buttigieg-mayor-indiana-money-lobbyists/

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cn...up-donations-from-wall-street-executives.html

To a certain extent, you have to play the game by the rules that are currently in place.

For example, you might think that F1 would be a better sport without all the aero all over the cars. But you're not going to build a wingless car for 2020, because that's not how the current system works. One can campaign for reform, but that doesn't mean that one can win by campaigning with both arms tied behind your back. And in politics, unless you win then your voice counts for very, very little (in the US at least, proportional representation systems do better with this).

 

[mustafur]

To a certain extent, you have to play the game by the rules that are currently in place.

For example, you might think that F1 would be a better sport without all the aero all over the cars. But you're not going to build a wingless car for 2020, because that's not how the current system works. One can campaign for reform, but that doesn't mean that one can win by campaigning with both arms tied behind your back. And in politics, unless you win then your voice counts for very, very little (in the US at least, proportional representation systems do better with this).

Highly disagree, look at Bernie's campaign.

Selling out is a choice.

 

[Imari]

Highly disagree, look at Bernie's campaign.

Selling out is a choice.

I said to a certain extent. You need money to run a campaign under the current system. If you've got years and years of people backing you because you're a crowd favourite that got shafted by the party lapdog, then yeah, you've got some leeway to take the moral highroad. If you're someone who is in their first presidential campaign, you have a limited ability to be picky about where the money comes from.

You view it as selling out, but it's only selling out if you take money in exchange for favours. The real problem is not donations, or donations from rich people, it's that donations apparently actually buy you some say in how the laws of the country work. That's a plutocracy, and nobody actually claims to want that. Despite there being a fair amount of evidence that it's at least partially descriptive of the current system in the US.

If someone were to simply refuse to play the lobbying game, I think that would be fascinating. Not least of which because it probably works in their favour for a couple of election cycles; lobbyists will still be throwing money around expecting it to work as per normal, and the politicians will have public support by not bending over for lobbyists at the expense of the country's wellbeing.

 

[mustafur]

I said to a certain extent. You need money to run a campaign under the current system. If you've got years and years of people backing you because you're a crowd favourite that got shafted by the party lapdog, then yeah, you've got some leeway to take the moral highroad. If you're someone who is in their first presidential campaign, you have a limited ability to be picky about where the money comes from.

You view it as selling out, but it's only selling out if you take money in exchange for favours. The real problem is not donations, or donations from rich people, it's that donations apparently actually buy you some say in how the laws of the country work. That's a plutocracy, and nobody actually claims to want that. Despite there being a fair amount of evidence that it's at least partially descriptive of the current system in the US.

If someone were to simply refuse to play the lobbying game, I think that would be fascinating. Not least of which because it probably works in their favour for a couple of election cycles; lobbyists will still be throwing money around expecting it to work as per normal, and the politicians will have public support by not bending over for lobbyists at the expense of the country's wellbeing.

So you think a big corporation is happy to donate to a candidate that may go against their interest, it's clearly bribery everyone knows how lobbying works, it isn't a charity.

Either run your campaign properly or be exposed as a fraud it's simple really.

Big money interests run the system in US it isn't "Partial" it is the system.

Would you trust a politician to implement say price controls on Pharmaceuticals when they are being backed by Big Pharma companies?

It's common sense.

 

[Imari]

So you think a big corporation is happy to donate to a candidate that may go against their interest, it's clearly bribery everyone knows how lobbying works, it isn't a charity.

Either run your campaign properly or be exposed as a fraud it's simple really.

Big money interests run the system in US it isn't "Partial" it is the system.

Would you trust a politician to implement say price controls on Pharmaceuticals when they are being backed by Big Pharma companies?

It's common sense.

Everyone knows how lobbying works, but I'm saying that it takes two in order to make it work that way. Lobbyists pay money based on the understanding that it buys them influence. If politicians simply refuse to be influenced, then what? Is there a contract that states that the politician must pass favourable laws in exchange for the lobbying money? Will they be sued for breach of implied contract?

You say it's not a charity, but that's basically what it is at the small level. It's people giving money to someone who they hope changes the world in a manner that they find desirable, but they ultimately have no control over how the money is spent. Why shouldn't that apply to donations of any size? Why couldn't that apply to donations of any size?

You're saying stop the donations that provide incentive for politicians to be corrupt. I'm saying politicians should stop being corrupt, donations or not.

 

[mustafur]

Everyone knows how lobbying works, but I'm saying that it takes two in order to make it work that way. Lobbyists pay money based on the understanding that it buys them influence. If politicians simply refuse to be influenced, then what? Is there a contract that states that the politician must pass favourable laws in exchange for the lobbying money? Will they be sued for breach of implied contract?

You say it's not a charity, but that's basically what it is at the small level. It's people giving money to someone who they hope changes the world in a manner that they find desirable, but they ultimately have no control over how the money is spent. Why shouldn't that apply to donations of any size? Why couldn't that apply to donations of any size?

You're saying stop the donations that provide incentive for politicians to be corrupt. I'm saying politicians should stop being corrupt, donations or not.

Maybe if you point your finger hard enough and tell them it's bad they might give a crap.

But in reality we have seen the consequences of this poor system and it's terrible.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

But in reality we have seen the consequences of this poor system and it's terrible.

"Predatory lending"

“But if thought corrupts language, language can also corrupt thought. A bad usage can spread by tradition and imitation even among people who should and do know better. " ~ George Orwell, 1984