The GTP Unofficial 2020 US Elections Thread

[Submerged]

OK guys, believe in all the black helicopters you want. The actual FACT of the matter is that Bernie Sanders did not have the votes to win the primary. Full Stop.

It doesn't matter whether he didn't get enough votes.

Its more matters on the principle of things.

He did indicate that there was a need to make a change and people took up on that.

Unfortunately, in the American polictical system and the modern astroturfing stuff going on, that requires a LOT OF MONEY to do correctly.

That makes people think.

 

[CTznOfTime]

OK guys, believe in all the black helicopters you want. The actual FACT of the matter is that Bernie Sanders did not have the votes to win the primary. Full Stop.

Yes Bernie lost... he lost in a game that was flawed from the start...

Bernie played correctly a game that he was bound to lose every single time...

How is that for fair... ?


Being part of the majority does not necessarily mean you are correct...


people have to stop thinking that the majority is correct... driving CUV/SUV is plain stupid... blind herd mentality.


You can continue to believe in a constructed so-called fact as much as you want... i hope one day you wake up and realize...

Dont look with your eyes... look with your heart...

 

[Famine]

driving CUV/SUV is plain stupid

Why?

 

[CTznOfTime]

Why?

It was a figure of speech...

... but since you ask, here is why:

SUV are not as practical (nor cool) as people think they are:
1) https://jalopnik.com/minivan-sales-are-plummeting-compared-to-suvs-because-w-1835336564

SUV are dangerous for everyone, and in effect, people will always want to go bigger and bigger... when will it stop!?
2) https://jalopnik.com/suvs-are-28-percent-more-likely-to-kill-other-drivers-i-1838994674

SUV are unnecessarily wasteful for what the majority of the people are doing with them:
3) https://jalopnik.com/suvs-are-gulping-all-the-gas-fuel-efficient-cars-are-sa-1839060197


Good alternatives to SUV:
https://jalopnik.com/here-are-the-only-six-cars-that-should-be-sold-1840731546

Ultra SUV are dumb, but if there are buyers for them, why not:
https://jalopnik.com/why-the-hell-is-bugatti-reportedly-developing-an-suv-1836975323


I am not against SUV. I am simply against the masses blindly jumping on SUV when they clearly do not need and when the majority is fine with a regular car (GOLF or Corolla is the best for most people).

SUV are very useful if you actually go on all terrain... but most people in the city/suburbans do not need one, unless they need one for the weekend.
Based on this simple fact, the CUV/SUV should not be dominating the automotive market... i just dont see the masses going off trails for them to warrant buying SUV...

So yes, driving CUV and SUV is stupid.
There are better ways to waste your money if you have too much of it.

You asked, i answer.

Please resume the regular programming.

 

[FerrariF1GT]

Bernie Sanders. The plurality of Democratic voters wanted him, the DNC said no no, and now we're stuck with a demented old rapist as the nominee.

I begin to think more and more that no one truly progressive can make it far under our current two-party system.

My word. There is no conspiracy by the DNC. I swear, the ‘DNC’ (read: establishment) to Sanders diehards is no different than what the ‘deep state’ is to Trump diehards. (Both are equally wild conspiracy theories.) Twitter and Reddit do not reflect reality. Period. If you really think that Sanders was supported by a ‘plurality’ of voters, then you are grossly underestimating the moderate Democrats and neoliberals. Guess what: their votes count too!

Rants aside: Don’t get me wrong, Sanders was appealing, and sometimes for good reason. I can respect the fact that he gained a (relatively) large, passionate following on social media, and to deny that would be massively ignorant of me. But he was not the only ‘progressive’ option on the Democratic field. There was Warren (who was my top choice), there was Buttigieg, there was Yang. (Side note: Buttigieg’s campaign was looking great following his Iowa caucus wins, and I was kind of hoping that he would take off and potentially be the nominee. I’m now hoping that Buttigieg and Yang can make bigger names for themselves and run again in 2024 and/or 2028 to better results.) The only people who I’ve seen dismiss them as ‘not progressive enough’ are those who’ve convinced themselves that Sanders is the only option. Their proposals may not have been as sweeping as what Bernie promised, but, mark my words, they were MUCH more pragmatic and more likely to get congressional approval from even moderate Democrats who also understand that pragmatism is is big part of getting things done, and in turn progress. Besides, I’m going to have to work hard and - I dare say it - pull myself up from the bootstraps regardless of who is in charge if I want to get ahead anyway.

Biden was the one who got the most votes by voters, therefore he is the nominee. Social media buzz means absolutely nothing if it doesn’t turn out with votes. He certainly isn’t the candidate I wanted, and his recent comments don’t help the cause. But I understand that this isn’t about who I wanted: it’s about who the majority of voters wanted.

All that being said, I do have my fair share of problems towards people who’ve convinced themselves that they have to vote for the candidate for one of two parties. You are always free to write-in for the candidate you want on top of the numerous third-party and independent candidates on the ballot.

 

[Famine]

SUV are not as practical (nor cool) as people think they are:
1) https://jalopnik.com/minivan-sales-are-plummeting-compared-to-suvs-because-w-1835336564

SUV are dangerous for everyone, and in effect, people will always want to go bigger and bigger... when will it stop!?
2) https://jalopnik.com/suvs-are-28-percent-more-likely-to-kill-other-drivers-i-1838994674

SUV are unnecessarily wasteful for what the majority of the people are doing with them:
3) https://jalopnik.com/suvs-are-gulping-all-the-gas-fuel-efficient-cars-are-sa-1839060197

Aside from the concept of basing your opinions on cars on what Jalopnik says (which is about as safe as basing it on what Clarkson says), why does driving less practical, less efficient, and less safe car make someone"stupid"?

A McLaren 570S is less practical, less efficient, and less safe than a Volvo XC90. Are McLaren drivers stupid?

And then there's my 1995 MX-5 with zero boot space, 1980s fuel economy, and an effective negative NCAP rating...

Good alternatives to SUV:
https://jalopnik.com/here-are-the-only-six-cars-that-should-be-sold-1840731546

"From the department of hot takes" That's pretty much a warning that the piece was written only for internet arguments and shouldn't be taken seriously.

I can't even buy three of those cars because they don't exist here, and can't afford two. The remaining one can't fit my wife's wheelchair in it and the seating position is too low for her - and I know because I've driven two and had one here. Its sister car however, the CX-3 - a small crossover which we do own - does not have those issues. And it's cheaper to run than a Sprinter van or Civic saloon. And, as someone who has driven all three, about a billion times more fun.

But hey, what a dummy she is, right?

Ultra SUV are dumb, but if there are buyers for them, why not:
https://jalopnik.com/why-the-hell-is-bugatti-reportedly-developing-an-suv-1836975323


I am not against SUV. I am simply against the masses blindly jumping on SUV when they clearly do not need and when the majority is fine with a regular car (GOLF or Corolla is the best for most people).

Perhaps people are in the best position to decide what car suits them the most - and what they want - rather than being told that one of two exceptionally bland hatchbacks is their best bet.

The Corolla and Golf are also far bigger than our CUV - unnecessarily so. It'd be wasteful for us to have one.


You'd also be amazed how much other stuff SUVs and CUVs enable. There'd be no Porsche without them (so that Cayman from the hot take is toast), no GT-R, definitely no Leaf (if EVs are your thing), probably no Mazda or Honda (bye bye 3 and Civic), it wouldn't look good for BMW, Mercedes, Ford... it's a pretty big list. In fact there'd probably only be Corollas and Golfs left.

If you like cars at all, the people you say are stupid are also responsible for all the good cars you like.


Thinking other people are stupid because they make decisions that suit them but you think you wouldn't make is a far bigger issue than what people drive.

 

[CTznOfTime]

Aside from the concept of basing your opinions on cars on what Jalopnik says (which is about as safe as basing it on what Clarkson says), why does driving less practical, less efficient, and less safe car make someone"stupid"?

A McLaren 570S is less practical, less efficient, and less safe than a Volvo XC90. Are McLaren drivers stupid?

And then there's my 1995 MX-5 with zero boot space, 1980s fuel economy, and an effective negative NCAP rating...

"From the department of hot takes" That's pretty much a warning that the piece was written only for internet arguments and shouldn't be taken seriously.

I can't even buy three of those cars because they don't exist here, and can't afford two. The remaining one can't fit my wife's wheelchair in it and the seating position is too low for her - and I know because I've driven two and had one here. Its sister car however, the CX-3 - a small crossover which we do own - does not have those issues. And it's cheaper to run than a Sprinter van or Civic saloon.

But hey, what a dummy she is, right?

Perhaps people are in the best position to decide what car suits them the most - and what they want - rather than being told that one of two exceptionally bland hatchbacks is their best bet.

The Corolla and Golf are also far bigger than our CUV - unnecessarily so. It'd be wasteful for us to have one.


You'd also be amazed how much other stuff SUVs and CUVs enable. There'd be no Porsche without them (so that Cayman from the hot take is toast), no GT-R, definitely no Leaf (if EVs are your thing), probably no Mazda or Honda (bye bye 3 and Civic), it wouldn't look good for BMW, Mercedes, Ford... it's a pretty big list. In fact there'd probably only be Corollas and Golfs left.

If you like cars at all, the people you say are stupid are also responsible for all the good cars you like.


Thinking other people are stupid because they make decisions that suit them but you think you wouldn't make is a far bigger issue than what people drive.

I stand corrected

I cannot be right against the wisdom of the crowd.

 

[Biggles]

They have all been told to ignore Bernie, because Bernie would be the Robinhood against the corporation...

Or ... a majority of Democrat primary voters did not feel confident that Sanders would prevail against Trump in the GE & were more concerned about nominating a candidate to prevent Trump from putting the US through 4 more years of xenophobic, nationalist, racist, Supreme-Court-packing, chaotic, egotistical insanity. Could be that.

 

[Famine]

I cannot be right against the wisdom of the crowd.

The number of people who agree with something does not have any bearing on whether it is true. But for things that are subjective, like what's the best colour and what car should I drive, someone who does not agree with you is neither wrong nor stupid for doing so.

That includes who they think is the best person to lead their country politically.

 

[mustafur]

My word. There is no conspiracy by the DNC. I swear, the ‘DNC’ (read: establishment) to Sanders diehards is no different than what the ‘deep state’ is to Trump diehards. (Both are equally wild conspiracy theories.) Twitter and Reddit do not reflect reality. Period. If you really think that Sanders was supported by a ‘plurality’ of voters, then you are grossly underestimating the moderate Democrats and neoliberals. Guess what: their votes count too!

Rants aside: Don’t get me wrong, Sanders was appealing, and sometimes for good reason. I can respect the fact that he gained a (relatively) large, passionate following on social media, and to deny that would be massively ignorant of me. But he was not the only ‘progressive’ option on the Democratic field. There was Warren (who was my top choice), there was Buttigieg, there was Yang. (Side note: Buttigieg’s campaign was looking great following his Iowa caucus wins, and I was kind of hoping that he would take off and potentially be the nominee. I’m now hoping that Buttigieg and Yang can make bigger names for themselves and run again in 2024 and/or 2028 to better results.) The only people who I’ve seen dismiss them as ‘not progressive enough’ are those who’ve convinced themselves that Sanders is the only option. Their proposals may not have been as sweeping as what Bernie promised, but, mark my words, they were MUCH more pragmatic and more likely to get congressional approval from even moderate Democrats who also understand that pragmatism is is big part of getting things done, and in turn progress. Besides, I’m going to have to work hard and - I dare say it - pull myself up from the bootstraps regardless of who is in charge if I want to get ahead anyway.

Biden was the one who got the most votes by voters, therefore he is the nominee. Social media buzz means absolutely nothing if it doesn’t turn out with votes. He certainly isn’t the candidate I wanted, and his recent comments don’t help the cause. But I understand that this isn’t about who I wanted: it’s about who the majority of voters wanted.

All that being said, I do have my fair share of problems towards people who’ve convinced themselves that they have to vote for the candidate for one of two parties. You are always free to write-in for the candidate you want on top of the numerous third-party and independent candidates on the ballot.

Buttigieg was not progressive sorry to say so it means you where not following him, his policies literally changed with the wind arguing against the policies he started with.

 

[Swagger897]

OK guys, believe in all the black helicopters you want. The actual FACT of the matter is that Bernie Sanders did not have the votes to win the primary. Full Stop.

Obviously.... he pandered to an audience (a “movement”) that was never going to show up and was never going to be a large enough force to push him past both Joe or HRC... any two way race and Bernie will lose. His base simply does not show up or count large enough.

 

[jjaisli]

My word. There is no conspiracy by the DNC. I swear, the ‘DNC’ (read: establishment) to Sanders diehards is no different than what the ‘deep state’ is to Trump diehards. (Both are equally wild conspiracy theories.).....Sanders was appealing, and sometimes for good reason. I can respect the fact that he gained a (relatively) large, passionate following on social media, and to deny that would be massively ignorant of me

I think it's clear that the DNC did NOT want Bernie Sanders as the nominee. I think the fact the Bernie is and has been an independent for most of his political career, but ran for executive office as a democrat is something lost on a lot of people. It also suggests that even Bernie himself knows that an independent candidate has no realistic chance of being elected and for the majority of the populace, only candidates with a (D) or (R) are seen as viable. The DNC understands that they have a very broad voting base and they have to appeal to a very diverse electorate. If Bernie had the backing of the majority of democrats, he would have had a better chance, both literally and philosophically. But he's not even a member of the party. And unlike how the Republican party essentially threw their mantra to the wind and became the party of Trump, I couldn't see that happening to the Democrats even IF Bernie Sanders had won the primary and (by a narrow margin) the general election. He would have been something of a pariah in the very party he represents. And we would be living in a political stalemate where not only the Republicans fought him tooth and nail but the more conservative elements of Democratic party would have as well. And if they hadn't, there would have likely been a red wave in Congress during the following midterm.

.....Biden was the one who got the most votes by voters, therefore he is the nominee. Social media buzz means absolutely nothing if it doesn’t turn out with votes. He certainly isn’t the candidate I wanted, and his recent comments don’t help the cause. But I understand that this isn’t about who I wanted: it’s about who the majority of voters wanted.

Ultimately, yes, this is what it comes down to. And I agree with the above part of your post. Biden was not who I wanted either. But he was the majority 'choice'. Sad but true. And sadder still, he's almost guaranteed to get my vote in November, because not voting (as I did in 2016) or voting for a 3rd party candidate, is just a vote for Trump. There are larger issues at stake.

 

[Dennisch]

voting for a 3rd party candidate, is just a vote for Trump. There are larger issues at stake.

This is by far the dumbest thing people can say. If you* don't get beyond this way of thinking, nothing will ever change. You can also vote 3rd party for the future of the USA. Coming election is going to be **** anyway. Grey or Orange ****.

Go for that 3rd party. Even with Biden in office nothing will change apart from the language used in the Oval Office. Loudmouth or Dementia. Or both. But at least with a 3rd party vote you can say that you're looking forward.


*not just you, but a whole lot of voters.

 

[DesertPenguin]

Instead of saying "you don't" you can say "one doesn't". 👍

All I know is that Biden is smart enough to trust those around him and to listen to them while Trump does not. That alone makes a huge difference in how this country will be run for the next four years.

 

[Carbonox]

I wonder if a 3rd party vote that would've gone for Trump in case 3rd parties didn't run, would also be a "Trump vote".

 

[Liquid]

All I know is that Biden is smart enough to trust those around him and to listen to them while Trump does not.

That's probably true and the most important thing to consider if you're a "lesser of two evils" voter.

It doesn't change the fact that the election is chiefly between two different piles of dog:censored: but still... it's a simple fact that there are millions of lesser of two evils voters out there.

 

[DesertPenguin]

And I'm in New York so to be honest my vote really doesn't matter as much. I'm in Nassau County, not Suffolk. They're very much Trump Country but not enough to make a difference in the state's overall numbers.

 

[Famine]

voting for a 3rd party candidate, is just a vote for Trump

Voting for a third party is always seen by people who don't want to do it as an in principle vote for [person they don't like]. There are Republicans saying that voting for a third party is just a vote for Biden, so they'll vote Trump even though he's an absolutely horrifying sack of human waste.

It isn't. Votes cannot be divided, and you cannot vote against someone. A vote for a third party is only a vote for a third party.

There are larger issues at stake.

Yes, like "what happens at the next election when it's two even worse people somehow, and we didn't vote in significant numbers last election to get a viable alternative onto the ballot papers nationally, and yet still somehow think that voting for a gross, racist, perverted, 70-year old dude to stop the other gross, racist, perverted, 70-year old dude is better than voting for someone who isn't a gross, racist, perverted, 70-year old dude".

A vote for anyone but a third party is a vote for the continuing cycle of giant douche vs turd sandwich; it's a vote that says you want this **** to carry on for the rest of your life, and your children's lives, as your country keeps on galloping down the crapper with progressively worse assholes wiping their arses with the Constitution.

Go team Biden.

 

[Joey D]

Ultimately, yes, this is what it comes down to. And I agree with the above part of your post. Biden was not who I wanted either. But he was the majority 'choice'. Sad but true. And sadder still, he's almost guaranteed to get my vote in November, because not voting (as I did in 2016) or voting for a 3rd party candidate, is just a vote for Trump. There are larger issues at stake.

No, a third party vote isn't a vote for Trump. It's a vote for a third party candidate. Do I know a third party isn't going to win? Absolutely, but why should I throw my vote away by voting for Biden or Trump when neither represent my ideology?

And if Trump wins, so be it. Biden won't be much better since he's a senile, racist, alleged rapist who doesn't understand how to communicate...just like Trump.

 

[Biggles]

This is by far the dumbest thing people can say. If you* don't get beyond this way of thinking, nothing will ever change. You can also vote 3rd party for the future of the USA. Coming election is going to be **** anyway. Grey or Orange ****.

Go for that 3rd party. Even with Biden in office nothing will change apart from the language used in the Oval Office. Loudmouth or Dementia. Or both. But at least with a 3rd party vote you can say that you're looking forward.


*not just you, but a whole lot of voters.

This is by far the dumbest thing people can say say. Fine, if you live in a country with proportional representation where you are more likely to be able to vote for something or someone you fully support & for your vote to have some influence on the make-up of government. Voting for Bush (or for Nader) instead of Gore got the US into the Iraq war with huge consequences for the US (& the rest of the world). Allowing Trump to win a second term is likely to have huge consequences for the US (& the rest of the world).

 

[Famine]

Fine, if you live in a country with proportional representation where you are more likely to be able to vote for something or someone you fully support & for your vote to have some influence on the make-up of government.

Your vote doesn't need to go towards something that wins in order to count. It's influential however you cast it - even on an either/or vote at a referendum.

Brexit would have been considerably different if it was 65:35, or even 60:40. Those who wasted 18 months calling for a second vote because it was only 52:48 wouldn't have bothered, which would have changed the entire tone of government and parliament. We'd not have had two further time-wasting general elections, and Boris wouldn't be in charge of anything other than his own winkie right now. Yep, 16m people voting Remain made Boris the PM.

The number and proportion of votes cast for the thing that doesn't win affects the mandate for the thing that does. The only wasted vote is a vote that is not cast at all - otherwise it has influence.

Voting for Bush (or for Nader) instead of Gore got the US into the Iraq war with huge consequences for the US (& the rest of the world).

We don't know what the consequences of a Gore presidency would have been either, although I suspect trillions spent on environmental policies (and punitive carbon laws and taxes, with a resultant diminishing of domestic manufacturing and an increased reliance on foreign [Chinese] good imports) would have been part of that. 9/11 would almost certainly have still happened as it was five years in planning, and we can only speculate what Gore's response would have been - or what the public's response to Gore's response would have been.

Voting for either of Bush and Gore also got the US into a position where it feels it has to vote for Trump or Biden.

Imagine if, four elections ago, Nader (or another third party) had got over five percent. Right now you could be looking at a third party in the low teens (as opposed to two candidates who like their girls in the low teens, allegedly) or better. If there was a party capable of commanding 20-25% of the vote it wouldn't need much swing to affect affairs.

That's not only the Presidency, but the Senate and House as well. That means concessions from whichever party has plurality (a majority is less likely in the current climate, but possible) rather than just relying on bipartisanship to push anything you want through. Imagine SCOTUS with 4 Reps, 4 Dems, and one other...

 

[Joey D]

Allowing Trump to win a second term is likely to have huge consequences for the US (& the rest of the world)

You honestly don't think Biden won't do some awful stuff in office that has long acting consequences? He learned from Obama who absolutely loved to bomb the hell out of countries. Biden is also racist, just like Trump, is an alleged rapist, just like Trump, and is a compulsive liar, just like Trump.

You have more faith than I do that Biden won't be a complete train wreck. And if he picks Klobuchar as a VP, she'll just act like the a self entitled person she is and berate every person who works in the White House.

 

[Dennisch]

But, like, he isn't Trump man.

 

[FerrariF1GT]

On top of what Famine and Joey are saying on third-parties and independents, you can write-in for just about anybody. Those votes count as well.

 

[jjaisli]

This is by far the dumbest thing people can say. If you* don't get beyond this way of thinking, nothing will ever change. You can also vote 3rd party for the future of the USA. Coming election is going to be **** anyway. Grey or Orange ****.

Voting for a third party is always seen by people who don't want to do it as an in principle vote for [person they don't like]. There are Republicans saying that voting for a third party is just a vote for Biden, so they'll vote Trump even though he's an absolutely horrifying sack of human waste.

It isn't. Votes cannot be divided, and you cannot vote against someone. A vote for a third party is only a vote for a third party.

No, a third party vote isn't a vote for Trump. It's a vote for a third party candidate. Do I know a third party isn't going to win? Absolutely, but why should I throw my vote away by voting for Biden or Trump when neither represent my ideology?

And if Trump wins, so be it. Biden won't be much better since he's a senile, racist, alleged rapist who doesn't understand how to communicate...just like Trump.

I think it's important for all of you to understand that I've been a registered independent for most of my voting life. I'm now 49 years old. I've voted Republican. I've voted Democrat. And there's a good chance I've voted for more 3rd party candidates over the years than most people on these boards. I've never liked the entrenched 2 party system here in the US. It serves to only divide us further and create more gridlock. I think the US would be better served by at least 5-6 different parties. But I stand by my comments in this case for several reasons.

1. I've lived in a small, rural town in Northern NJ for almost 15 years. I wasn't born here. I did a lot of traveling and relocating, both in the US and abroad, when I was younger, but we settled down when my daughter was born. Watching how local politics evolved in this town has been an eye opener. When we first moved here, the town operated under a Mayor-Council-Administrator Plan. It seemed pretty effective for governing local issues. But within a few years, parties were introduced into town politics for the first time. On the one hand, it was a boon. Both Republican and Democrat town council members were able to utilize their party affiliation on both a county and state level to gain access to funds and favors like never before. Suddenly there was funding for road projects, sports fields, a new library, a lake maintenance program, etc. It's a rural area with few businesses to offset the tax base. And our taxes were increasing at an outrageous rate, every year with little to show for it outside of the school system. And this town has always struggled to simply maintain itself. People quickly saw the benefit to what those party connections could do. On the other hand, the ridiculous partisan squabbling that dominated once civil council meetings quickly became intolerable and still is. I haven't attended a public meeting in years. Decisions were made and voted right on party lines, for better or for worse. And people no longer seem to vote even for even local council members by their reputation but simply by their party affiliation.

2. The lessons learned from local politics are easily scaled and applied to Washington. If there are going to be 3rd parties, it has to start at a grass roots level. Parties have to be built and groomed and grown from local groups to a national level. That's a movement that's not going to be built in a day. And the two parties that exist will do anything in their power to prevent it. We saw the schism on the Republican side in 2009 with the tea party movement. The GOP did everything they could to prevent it from breaking off and fracturing the voter base. As a result, the GOP became increasingly conservative. Would the US be better off with a true and independent Progressive party and some version of the Tea Party in addition to the GOP and DNC? Possibly. Maybe not. But there are probably other parties and movements that could also gain power. But these parties will have to grow and build that power and make those connections. Trying to elect an independent into executive office has almost no chance. Sanders himself knew this. And as I said, an independent would be a veritable lame duck in office. If it's going to start, it has to start in Congress and build from there.

3. No, I did not really want Joe Biden as the Democratic candidate. But to me it makes sense. I think AS a centrist, he can bring a lot of swing voters and potentially heal the ever increasing divide. I don't think the US is ready for a Bernie Sanders or an Elizabeth Warren and it would only cause a further backlash during the next round of elections. Progress happens in small steps. Joe is an old political dog. But he's savvy enough to build a good team around him that will be able to govern and move this country forward. Certainly not as far forward as I would like And that doesn't mean I don't cringe when he opens his mouth. But in my world view, he's CERTAINLY better than Trump. And right now, that's the priority. I consider getting rid of Trump and his entire administration as a national emergency. And if Biden has a better chance of beating Trump and if more registered Democrats will vote for Joe, then I'll settle for Joe. And we can worry about seeding the ground with levels of sanity hopes for the next election.

4. I disagree about voting 3rd party (for now) at the executive level because it's EXACTLY those votes that opened the door for Trump. Most national polls gave Trump almost no chance. Indeed, Hilary did win the popular vote. So it was a VERY close election. And I've said this before but I'll say it again here now to add to my point. Trump received fewer total votes than either McCain or Romney. Yet he still won the election. And the reason is because Hilary received fewer votes still. There are a number of sources where you can check this:

https://www.newsweek.com/bernie-sanders-trump-2016-election-654320

There for example. But according to this, approximately 20% of Bernie Sanders primary voters in the last election did NOT vote for Hilary. They either abstained or in some cases a smaller percentage, voted for Trump. That was MORE than enough to swing the election in Trump's favor. And right now, beating Trump, in my book, take precedence.

 

[Biggles]

You have more faith than I do that Biden won't be a complete train wreck. And if he picks Klobuchar as a VP, she'll just act like the a self entitled person she is and berate every person who works in the White House.

I have faith that Biden would not be in a position to act out in the way Trump has done. He has the grudging support of a majority of Democrats, rather than the cult-like support that Trump has arrived at. He clearly is not in possession of a lot of "political capital".

Your vote doesn't need to go towards something that wins in order to count. It's influential however you cast it - even on an either/or vote at a referendum.

In a proportional system that would be true ... & it's true to some degree even in the US system. I don't begrudge anybody voting the way they choose., & realistically, in anything other than a swing state, voting one way or another has no appreciable impact on the national result. However, voting 3rd party in a swing state will have an impact & if that means four more years of Trump it's easy to see, based on the last four years, that the consequences for the United States & the rest of the world, on a whole range of important issues - from world trade to women's reproductive rights - will be significant.

The rest of your post is purely speculative.

 

[Joey D]

No, I did not really want Joe Biden as the Democratic candidate. But to me it makes sense. I think AS a centrist, he can bring a lot of swing voters and potentially heal the ever increasing divide. I don't think the US is ready for a Bernie Sanders or an Elizabeth Warren and it would only cause a further backlash during the next round of elections. Progress happens in small steps. Joe is an old political dog. But he's savvy enough to build a good team around him that will be able to govern and move this country forward. Certainly not as far forward as I would like And that doesn't mean I don't cringe when he opens his mouth. But in my world view, he's CERTAINLY better than Trump. And right now, that's the priority. I consider getting rid of Trump and his entire administration as a national emergency. And if Biden has a better chance of beating Trump and if more registered Democrats will vote for Joe, then I'll settle for Joe. And we can worry about seeding the ground with levels of sanity hopes for the next election.

I have no faith Biden. Assuming he doesn't die in office, I can't see him doing anything meaningful. He's also senile enough to say the wrong thing in the wrong setting. He's clearly racist since he makes comments like "if you don't support me over Trump then you ain't black" to a black journalist. He's more than likely a rapist, and at the very least he's committed sexual assault on camera numerous times. He's also a liar, even lying about his education. Sure, I don't think he'll be on Twitter 24/7 but in a way, I think that's more dangerous because that means his BS is being hidden from the public. At least with Trump, we know every detail of how big of an ass he is since he takes every opportunity to show us.

To me, replacing Trump with Biden is just trading an obese, rapist, racist, senile, orange man for an average weight, rapist, racist, senile, slightly different shade of orange man. So if Biden is the answer to the national emergency Trump is (and I agree, Trump is a national emergency) then we are far more screwed than I thought.

4. I disagree about voting 3rd party (for now) at the executive level because it's EXACTLY those votes that opened the door for Trump. Most national polls gave Trump almost no chance. Indeed, Hilary did win the popular vote. So it was a VERY close election. And I've said this before but I'll say it again here now to add to my point. Trump received fewer total votes than either McCain or Romney. Yet he still won the election. And the reason is because Hilary received fewer votes still. There are a number of sources where you can check this:

I'm not sure third parties caused anyone to win or lose. Trump won because of the electoral college, and whether the EC is right or wrong, it's how we do it here in the US. The popular vote doesn't really mean anything since, ultimately, it's up to the states to figure out how to divide their votes. I think it needs to change, but it won't.

Still, even if the popular vote meant something, people who voted third party were probably never going to vote for Trump or Clinton so it didn't really skew the votes one way or another. People who vote Republican or Democrat no matter what were always going to vote in line with their preferred party. Swing voters could go either way, but most of those voters were either going to pick Clinton or Trump. Honestly, in 2016 if it had only been Trump and Clinton as the two choices for president, I would've just abstained from voting for president.

 

[FerrariF1GT]

In actual election news, Jo Jorgensen is the Libertarian Party's nominee.

Looking at her website, I happen to agree with her on many of the issues, especially the neutrality, environmental, immigration, and criminal justice policies. She's the one I'll probably vote for going forward. Hopefully she is invited to the debates alongside other third-party and independent candidates. The fact of the matter is that I'm just happy that the nominee isn't Vermin Supreme.

 

[Joey D]

In actual election news, Jo Jorgensen is the Libertarian Party's nominee.

Looking at her website, I happen to agree with her on many of the issues, especially the neutrality, environmental, immigration, and criminal justice policies. She's the one I'll probably vote for going forward. Hopefully she is invited to the debates alongside other third-party and independent candidates. The fact of the matter is that I'm just happy that the nominee isn't Vermin Supreme.

She's not perfect, but I agree with her on most things. I particularly like that she favors nuclear energy, the end to America being involved in conflicts, and the opt out for social security. Also, reducing or eliminating prison sentences for people who commit victimless crimes is good too.

I'll be curious to see who her running mate is. It seems like Justin Amash isn't interested right now so he's probably out.

 

[eran0004]

He's clearly racist since he makes comments like "if you don't support me over Trump then you ain't black" to a black journalist.

As far as I know he made one such comment, but perhaps he does have a history of making racist comments like that, I don’t know.

And I think it’s an important distinction to make, if you are a racist because you once or twice said or did something racist because of ignorance or by mistake, or if you are a racist because you believe in a racially segregated world and you purposely do or say racist things in order to achieve that goal.

If you’re a racist by mistake or by ignorance, you can learn and improve and hopefully it won’t happen again.

If you’re a racist by belief, then the likelihood that you will improve is small. It would probably require some overwhelming experience before you change your mind and your behaviour.

So while it was a racist thing to say, it needs to be analysed in a wider context. Otherwise we end up in a scenario where anyone who runs for president is a racist, and then we won’t see the difference between a Hitler and someone who just didn’t think his response through properly.