The GTP Unofficial 2020 US Elections Thread

[mustafur]

Corbyn's results in the recent British elections should be a pointer to how Bernie will probably fair as a potential democratic candidate in the US elections.

So you think the Brexit part didn't have an effect?

The Torys would of won that regardless, they had the leave voters on a leash and Labour couldn't commit to the other side(Remain) a side that we already know has less numbers.

 

[TheCracker]

So you think the Brexit part didn't have an effect?

Of for sure it did, but only in that it strengthened the majority that the Tory's would have won by. Labour's non-committal attitude didn't help their chances, but it didn't loose them the election either.

There's been a global shift towards right-wing nationalism in recent times that the left doesn't appear to have an answer to at the moment.

 

[Imari]

I'm not sure that there's enough support or momentum in the western world for a proper left-wing president (or prime minister) right now.

New Zealand?

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

 

[Dotini]

There's been a global shift towards right-wing nationalism in recent times that the left doesn't appear to have an answer to at the moment.

Sanctions. Sanctions are the answer.
The EU is to apply sanctions to errant Poland.

 

[TheCracker]

New Zealand?

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

You're right in that New Zealand and Portugal, as Scaff pointed out, have indeed bucked the trend of a general turn to the right, but both governments are coalition governments so not exactly a resounding left-shift. Portugal's coalition does have a 'socialist' Prime Minister, but the party with the most seats in the assembly is the PSD, which is a centre-right party.

 

[Scaff]

You're right in that New Zealand and Portugal, as Scaff pointed out, have indeed bucked the trend of a general turn to the right, but both governments are coalition governments so not exactly a resounding left-shift. Portugal's coalition does have a 'socialist' Prime Minister, but the party with the most seats in the assembly is the PSD, which is a centre-right party.

That's more a fact of both countries using proportional representation voting systems than any anything else.

Its also interesting to note that in the 2019 election, the Populist and Nationalist party only gained 1 seat.

 

[Imari]

That's more a fact of both countries using proportional representation voting systems than any anything else.

I feel like too many people don't understand that proportional representation makes it nearly impossible for even a major party to have an outright majority, thus resulting in necessary compromises and negotiations with smaller parties who would otherwise have no power at all.

 

[Dotini]

I think it's wonderful that many nations have proportional representation in voting and in government. I imagine it might be pleasant to live there.

However, in the major powers in positions of global leadership where timely major decisions and actions are a quotidian routine, dithering indecision is intolerable. Russia and China have top-down authoritarian systems. The US has the two-party system, the happy public face of the military-industrial complex.

 

[Biggles]

The first? I'm not so sure. Think about how America gained its independence, for starters. That was some time before boomers. I know feminism and anti-racism started way before boomers.

Every generation has its moments to shine, but don't get too revisionist in your history while doing it.

... the Russian revolution, the Taiping revolution, the French revolution, the Haitian slave revolt, Spartacus's slave revolt, Moses leading the Israelites out of Egypt ...

Yeah, sure - the boomers didn't invent rebellion. But what's "revisionist" is pretending the boomers are an unusually status quo generation. Growing up in the '60's & '70's it certainly didn't feel that way. Like I said, in reality the people rebelling against the status quo are generally only a minority of the population. Sanders may seem to have strong support from millennials, but what percentage of millennials will actually get out & vote for Sanders when the election comes around?

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

One thing I started to think about today:

If Donald Trump loses the election in 2020, what are the chances that he actually concedes the presidency? I can't plausibly put that figure higher than 50/50. He would have to, by the very nature of our democratic system, admit defeat. I don't think he is capable of that. Who else wants to take odds?

A step further: If he doesn't concede defeat, what are the chances that the senate and supreme court do anything about it? I'd say those odds are even lower. The Republican party's objective is clear as day: Destroy any competing power. They want to eradicate the democratic party from existence.

 

[Danoff]

One thing I started to think about today:

If Donald Trump loses the election in 2020, what are the chances that he actually concedes the presidency? I can't plausibly put that figure higher than 50/50. He would have to, by the very nature of our democratic system, admit defeat. I don't think he is capable of that. Who else wants to take odds?

A step further: If he doesn't concede defeat, what are the chances that the senate and supreme court do anything about it? I'd say those odds are even lower. The Republican party's objective is clear as day: Destroy any competing power. They want to eradicate the democratic party from existence.

I think that there is a lot of momentum within the US to force him out if he doesn't want to leave. I don't think that the US military would stand behind him if he refused to concede the presidency. So while he might not admit defeat, I don't think he would try to actually force the issue. What he would do is say that it the result is fraudulent, and that he actually won. He would demand recounts, or just say that the result is illegitimate. There is a decent portion of the country that would stand behind that. I think @Chrunch Houston might be willing to. But I don't see the government/military actually standing behind it.

It would end up being a court battle.

 

[Keef]

To put it succinctly, I don't think flopping back and forth between Bernie and Trump is good for the country.

The goal is to restore sanctity to law by removing appointees who violate law, choosing people who have proven themselves truthful over time, and establishing a culture of honor, etc. This is less about policy to me than about ousting the liars and crooks. Within 3 years our executive branch developed a terrifying culture of lying and cheating and overstepping...even Nixon had the dignity to adhere to subpoenas and quit while he was ahead. This people in charge right now won't quit, and it needs to stop immediately.

A cultural shift is necessary within government and I think it will prevent wild political swings (I think the swing you're talking about is how Trump is literally a fascist sympathizer) like you suggest. I'm only 31 and I thinking about the drama between Obama and McCain makes me feel all warm and fuzzy. Remember when Obama and his blacks were going to take over the country and everybody would get a million dollars of food stamps every year, and all the white people would be sucked dry like a freaking Tupac memoir? Wasn't that nice.

but what percentage of millennials will actually get out & vote for Sanders when the election comes around?

A lot of us. We're pissed.



He mentions the military-industrial and prison-industrial comlpexes in this video, as well as other cronyist industries. Libertarians have an opportunity to band together with a candidate who wants to attack the same things they do - reducing cronyist big-government influence. Or, they can piss away their votes on "principle" while a fascist rigs our judicial system to a point where not even judges can be trusted to reverse cronyist decisions.

It took Putin less than four years to develop the current crony system in Russia, and to align himself with all their economic oligarchs, and to cement his power which is now in its fourth term...I have a funny feeling he'll take a four-year hiatus once again, only to be elected to his fifth term afterwards. Trump is following Putin's example and it needs to stop before it's irreversible. Libertarians are too caught up in their principles to give a crap about what is actually happening.

 

[Danoff]

The goal is to restore sanctity to law by removing appointees who violate law, choosing people who have proven themselves truthful over time, and establishing a culture of honor, etc. This is less about policy to me than about ousting the liars and crooks. Within 3 years our executive branch developed a terrifying culture of lying and cheating and overstepping...even Nixon had the dignity to adhere to subpoenas and quit while he was ahead. This people in charge right now won't quit, and it needs to stop immediately.

A cultural shift is necessary within government and I think it will prevent wild political swings (I think the swing you're talking about is how Trump is literally a fascist sympathizer) like you suggest. I'm only 31 and I thinking about the drama between Obama and McCain makes me feel all warm and fuzzy. Remember when Obama and his blacks were going to take over the country and everybody would get a million dollars of food stamps every year, and all the white people would be sucked dry like a freaking Tupac memoir? Wasn't that nice.

In otherwords, it has almost nothing to do with the democrat candidate. So wouldn't it be nice if we ended up with a moderate instead of a Bernie? Not only would it be closer to my personal preferences on government, it would also (I hope) calm the poo flinging.

 

[Keef]

So wouldn't it be nice if we ended up with a moderate instead of a Bernie?

No, because as I mentioned in my edit, the moderate candidates are not interested in challenging the economic and political establishment. They're all basically Clinton Democrats and I think you can agree we don't want that. I don't recall the Clintons ever challenging the ever-concentrated economic and political elite. They say nothing about the rise of oligarchy. It's happening, right now, quickly, following Putin's example, and our investigative agencies have failed to do anything about it because the DoJ's boss, Barr, was chosen specifically to block their efforts. Trump might be an idiot but he's not stupid. He's been a CEO his entire life which means he's an expert in consolidating power.

Ron Paul was viewed as an extremist by Republicans because he challenged the status quo. Same goes for Bernie and Democrats.

 

[Danoff]

He mentions the military-industrial and prison-industrial comlpexes in this video, as well as other cronyist industries. Libertarians have an opportunity to band together with a candidate who wants to attack the same things they do - reducing cronyist big-government influence. Or, they can piss away their votes on "principle" while a fascist rigs our judicial system to a point where not even judges can be trusted to reverse cronyist decisions.

It took Putin less than four years to develop the current crony system in Russia, and to align himself with all their economic oligarchs, and to cement his power which is now in its fourth term...I have a funny feeling he'll take a four-year hiatus once again, only to be elected to his fifth term afterwards. Trump is following Putin's example and it needs to stop before it's irreversible. Libertarians are too caught up in their principles to give a crap about what is actually happening.

Bernie stands at least as opposed to Libertarian philosophy as Trump. The only marginal benefit Bernie has over Trump from my perspective is that he's less likely (at least in my poor estimation) to be successful at destroying the constitution. I'm not interested in picking the lesser of two horrible options.

 

[Rallywagon]

Bernie stands at least as opposed to Libertarian philosophy as Trump. The only marginal benefit Bernie has over Trump from my perspective is that he's less likely (at least in my poor estimation) to be successful at destroying the constitution. I'm not interested in picking the lesser of two horrible options.

I definitely don't think Sanders is going to throw dynamite at the constitution like trump's been doing though. Honestly I think it quite disingenuous to put Sanders in the same boat as Trump. Sanders isnt a business man, hasn't practiced shady business practices, has actual political experience, has a history of standing up for human right and can articulate words and form sentences that make sense. I get you dont like the idea of social Democrats. But I am calling hard BS on any sort of equation to Trump.
I am with Keef in so much as the last thing I want is another shady establishment politician, nor do I think another billionaire is really the healthy choice either. And that's every running candidate except Sanders and Gabbard, for as long as shes in the race. I dont subscribe to all of Sanders ideas, but of the lot, Gabbard and Him (in that order) are the two that I feel reflect my ideologies best. And of the group, I think they are the only two that actually have we the people, and not we the donors best interests at heart.

 

[Danoff]

I definitely don't think Sanders is going to throw dynamite at the constitution like trump's been doing though.

I think he would if given the chance. But he'll have more opposition than Trump. You want gun control? You're gonna get it from a republican. You want universal healthcare? You're gonna get it from a republican. Why? Because the democrats won't oppose it and the republicans are less likely to oppose it. This is (partly) why Trump is allowed to run roughshod over the constitution in a way that democrats do not get away with, because he's on the pro-constitution team, so obviously it's ok when he does it.

That said, almost none of Sanders's platform is consistent with the constitution or limited government. He's about as anti-libertarian as it gets.

Honestly I think it quite disingenuous to put Sanders in the same boat as Trump.

He's roughly as far from me as Trump.

I am with Keef in so much as the last thing I want is another shady establishment politician, nor do I think another billionaire is really the healthy choice either. And that's every running candidate except Sanders and Gabbard, for as long as shes in the race. I dont subscribe to all of Sanders ideas, but of the lot, Gabbard and Him (in that order) are the two that I feel reflect my ideologies best. And of the group, I think they are the only two that actually have we the people, and not we the donors best interests at heart.

I'm not interested in bread and circuses for the 1% or the 99%. I'm also not interested in class warfare or us vs. them.


Edit:

Shaking things up or being anti-establishment is only good if the ideas behind it are solid.

 

[Imari]

... the Russian revolution, the Taiping revolution, the French revolution, the Haitian slave revolt, Spartacus's slave revolt, Moses leading the Israelites out of Egypt ...

Yeah, sure - the boomers didn't invent rebellion.

Good, so we agree that you were being unnecessarily hyperbolic and assigning causes to them that they very much did not start.

But what's "revisionist" is pretending the boomers are an unusually status quo generation. Growing up in the '60's & '70's it certainly didn't feel that way.

I'm sure it didn't, and from my knowledge of history that generation certainly didn't fit the status quo in the 60s and 70s.

But people can change over time, and what is the status quo changes over time also, no? It's a stereotype that teenagers and young people in general are more rebellious than older people for good reason. It seems perfectly plausible that boomers were generally radicals in their time, and as they've aged they've become less so to the point that there's a reasonable generalisation that they're ignoring some of the specific nuance of modern society to the detriment of younger generations.

Personally, I think it's mostly that boomers happen to be of an age right now that means that they're the generation that is highly likely to both be in a position of relative power and have pretty conservative views (because that's legitimately what seems to happen as people get older, regardless of generation). The same could probably have been said of any past generation in a similar position, but that doesn't make it any less apt. What happened in the past isn't that relevant when you can observe what's going on right now and that's the subject of discussion.

I get that it's hard to take it impersonally if you happen to be a boomer and not have these traits, but it's also hard if you're a younger person living in a world that tells you that you deserve to be poor because you don't work hard enough to earn a house that costs 20 times your annual wage. And unfortunately, there's growing evidence that the sort of public pressure and protests that was common in the 60s and 70s does not work in the modern age.

I don't think that the US military would stand behind him if he refused to concede the presidency.

I agree with this. The President may be Commander in Chief, but the military takes their oath to their country very seriously. Military leaders are not hired for their stupidity. It's a very hard sell to convince those sorts of people that they should point guns at their own countrymen in order to uphold the results of an election, even one that might appear to be rigged.

 

[Danoff]

I agree with this. The President may be Commander in Chief, but the military takes their oath to their country very seriously. Military leaders are not hired for their stupidity. It's a very hard sell to convince those sorts of people that they should point guns at their own countrymen in order to uphold the results of an election, even one that might appear to be rigged.

He also hasn't been particularly nice to or respectful of the military during his term. I don't think he's won any extra special consideration from them.

 

[Keef]

destroying the constitution.

As far as I'm aware, he hasn't proposed any currently unconstitutional ideas, unlike Warren's "wealth tax" which would require an entire amendment and is totally unrealistic. I have no fear of his policies which I disagree with because Congress is difficult. I think the culture change will be Bernie's practical contribution, and that's an enormous factor for me.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

He also hasn't been particularly nice to or respectful of the military during his term. I don't think he's won any extra special consideration from them.

He's been exceptionally been nice and encouraging to the tough guys.

What I mean by tough is murderers and war criminals....

 

[Rallywagon]

I think he would if given the chance. But he'll have more opposition than Trump. You want gun control? You're gonna get it from a republican. You want universal healthcare? You're gonna get it from a republican. Why? Because the democrats won't oppose it and the republicans are less likely to oppose it. This is (partly) why Trump is allowed to run roughshod over the constitution in a way that democrats do not get away with, because he's on the pro-constitution team, so obviously it's ok when he does it.

While that is true, I think that's also strongly dependent on who controls the house and senate as well.
I would be curious to see what the base would do if trump or the RNC took up gun control or UBI as a cause. Im incline to think they would likely form a new party

That said, almost none of Sanders's platform is consistent with the constitution or limited government. He's about as anti-libertarian as it gets.



He's roughly as far from me as Trump.

I'm not interested in bread and circuses for the 1% or the 99%. I'm also not interested in class warfare or us vs. them.

I can agree with that

Edit:

Shaking things up or being anti-establishment is only good if the ideas behind it are solid.

I think we've surpassed this. Trump's done shook up everything, with nothing solid.
Besides im not sure there is a good "moderate" candidate

 

[Danoff]

As far as I'm aware, he hasn't proposed any currently unconstitutional ideas, unlike Warren's "wealth tax" which would require an entire amendment and is totally unrealistic. I have no fear of his policies which I disagree with because Congress is difficult. I think the culture change will be Bernie's practical contribution, and that's an enormous factor for me.

His healthcare plan is constitutionally ambiguous at best. The ACA is still under attack for constitutionality. And Bernie's plans have come under constitutional scrutiny in the past. For his current plan, I think he's keeping it vague enough so that it's hard to know.

This is from his website:

• Guarantee tuition and debt-free public colleges, universities, HBCUs, Minority Serving Institutions and trade-schools to all.
• Cancel all student loan debt for the some 45 million Americans who owe about $1.6 trillion and place a cap on student loan interest rates going forward at 1.88 percent.
• Invest $1.3 billion every year in private, non-profit historically black colleges and universities and minority-serving institutions

That's tough to do without running over the constitution as well. This next bit is also constitutionally problematic:

• Establish federal protections against the firing of workers for any reason other than “just cause.”
• Provide unions the ability to organize through a majority sign up process and enact “first contract” provisions to ensure companies cannot prevent a union from forming by denying a first contract.
• Deny federal contracts to companies that pay poverty wages, outsource jobs overseas, engage in union busting, deny good benefits, and pay CEOs outrageous compensation packages

and this, which is ludicrous

Protect tenants by implementing a national rent control standard, a “just-cause” requirement for evictions, and ensuring the right to counsel in housing disputes.

This next bit is somewhat constitutionally ambiguous. I don't know if this is targeted at federal laws or not, but if not... it's problematic.

Cut the national prison population in half and end mass incarceration by abolishing the death penalty, three strikes laws, and mandatory minimum sentences, as well as expanding the use of alternatives to detention

This has constitutional problems

Eliminate all of the $81 billion in past-due medical debt held by 79 million Americans —one in every six Americans.

So does this

Give teachers a much-deserved raise by setting a starting salary for teachers at no less than $60,000, expanding collective bargaining rights and teacher tenure, and funding out-of-pocket expenses for classroom materials.

This is a wealth tax, which you said he doesn't have.

• Establish an annual tax on the extreme wealth of the top 0.1 percent of U.S. households.
• Only apply to net worth of over $32 million and anyone who has a net worth of less than $32 million, would not see their taxes go up at all under this plan.

This has constitutional issues.

• Cap consumer loans and credit cards rates at 15 percent across all financial institutions and allow states to go even further.
• Allow every post office to offer basic and affordable banking services and end lending discrimination.

more

equire that all internet service providers offer a Basic Internet Plan that provides quality broadband speeds at an affordable price.

• Break up internet service provider and cable monopolies, bar service providers from providing content, and unwind anticompetitive mergers.

This is straight unconstitutional, but isn't exactly news or different from current unconstitutional practices

Companies with large gaps between their CEO and median worker pay would see progressively higher corporate tax rates.

This too...

• Pass the For the 99.8 Percent Act to establish a progressive estate tax on multi-millionaire and billionaire inheritances.
• End special tax breaks on capital gains and dividends for the top 1%.
• Tax Wall Street speculators through the Inclusive Prosperity Act Financial Transaction Tax.

It just goes on and on. I didn't even highlight a ton of stuff in there that isn't unconstitutional but is instead just a terrible idea. I couldn't even finish the website.


Edit:

One more... these ones are dubious at best, and the last one is basically a no-go constitutionally.

• Ban the sale and distribution of assault weapons. Assault weapons are designed and sold as tools of war. There is absolutely no reason why these firearms should be sold to civilians.
• Prohibit high-capacity ammunition magazines.
• Regulate assault weapons in the same way that we currently regulate fully automatic weapons — a system that essentially makes them unlawful to own.
• Ban the 3-D printing of firearms and bump stocks

 

[mustafur]

Your losing me on this one, alot of those policies are a very good thing(I agree a few are bad though), I don't think rent control would work and have a chance to be implemented, I have no problem with strengthening union rules, any type of gun ban in America would be extremely hard to pass though thanks to the NRA, Obama couldn't do it and he went into 2008 with a stronger anti gun message then Bernie and Democrat domination of House and Senate.

The 15% Interest Cap is stupid and deranged I agree on you there, maybe if he said above the Federal Reserve current rate, but if there is high inflation, a 15% cap is going to destroy any business that wishes to give out a loan of any kind and I can't see how this would ever pass without it being linked to the current rate of inflation.

Unrelated to the Bernie stuff, Bloomberg Audio has been linked of him saying Stop and Frisk is especially targeting minorities:

 

[Biggles]

Good, so we agree that you were being unnecessarily hyperbolic and assigning causes to them that they very much did not start.



I'm sure it didn't, and from my knowledge of history that generation certainly didn't fit the status quo in the 60s and 70s.

But people can change over time, and what is the status quo changes over time also, no? It's a stereotype that teenagers and young people in general are more rebellious than older people for good reason. It seems perfectly plausible that boomers were generally radicals in their time, and as they've aged they've become less so to the point that there's a reasonable generalisation that they're ignoring some of the specific nuance of modern society to the detriment of younger generations.

Personally, I think it's mostly that boomers happen to be of an age right now that means that they're the generation that is highly likely to both be in a position of relative power and have pretty conservative views (because that's legitimately what seems to happen as people get older, regardless of generation). The same could probably have been said of any past generation in a similar position, but that doesn't make it any less apt. What happened in the past isn't that relevant when you can observe what's going on right now and that's the subject of discussion.

I get that it's hard to take it impersonally if you happen to be a boomer and not have these traits, but it's also hard if you're a younger person living in a world that tells you that you deserve to be poor because you don't work hard enough to earn a house that costs 20 times your annual wage. And unfortunately, there's growing evidence that the sort of public pressure and protests that was common in the 60s and 70s does not work in the modern age.

No, we don't agree that I'm being unnecessarily hyperbolic.

Although this sounds pretty hyperbolic:

it's also hard if you're a younger person living in a world that tells you that you deserve to be poor .

I merely pointed out in, response to Eunos (& his mildly hyperbolic comments), that it's pretty pointless to blame the boomer generation as the boomer generation was actually very active in trying overthrowing the status quo in the 1960's & '70's. At the time, young boomers - the politically active ones - blamed the older generations in exactly the same way that millennials - the politically active ones - are blaming boomers now. The problem is - then as now - that only a minority of young people are politically active & engaged. As they age, more of the millennial cohort will wind up voting & the way they vote is likely to be more conservative. I note, for example, that GenXers essentially voted the same in the 2016 election as boomers.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

I'm just gonna throw this out here.

In the Iowa Democrat Caucus, Mayor Pete won with 564 votes. Running practically unopposed, Trump got 31,464 votes.

Could this possibly be true? I was looking but couldn't find anything to debunk.

Iowa is not turning blue anytime soon.

source

 

[mustafur]

I'm just gonna throw this out here.

In the Iowa Democrat Caucus, Mayor Pete won with 564 votes. Running practically unopposed, Trump got 31,464 votes.

Could this possibly be true? I was looking but couldn't find anything to debunk.

Iowa is not turning blue anytime soon.

source

That's because your counting State Delegates Equlivents(SDE) on the Democrat side, in reality 3 people on the Democrat side both got higher vote totals:

Buttigieg: 43,274 (25.1%)
Sanders: 45,842 (26.5%)
Warren: 34,934 (20.2%)


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Iowa_Democratic_caucuses

 

[Chrunch Houston]

That's because your counting State Delegates Equlivents(SDE) on the Democrat side, in reality 3 people on the Democrat side both got higher vote totals:

Buttigieg: 43,274 (25.1%)
Sanders: 45,842 (26.5%)
Warren: 34,934 (20.2%)


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_Iowa_Democratic_caucuses

Thank you. I'm sure Trump will win Iowa, but that seemed a little ridiculous.

 

[Liquid]

RE: The debate a few posts up

It's also interesting to throw out that despite the existence of multiple parties with differing positions, Portugal is a de jure socialist state irrespective of the pragmatic de facto reality. The preamble of the Portuguese Constitution explicitly "affirms the Portuguese people's decision to [...] open up a path towards a socialist society".

Necessary "not all socialism is Marxist-Leninist" footnote.

 

[Danoff]

Your losing me on this one, alot of those policies are a very good thing(I agree a few are bad though)

Which ones are good specifically? Because I'm happy to discuss exactly why any of those is bad and/or unconstitutional.