The GTP Unofficial 2020 US Elections Thread

[ryzno]

Was that so hard?

It actually was. I said what I said. I don't have to respond if it's sarcasm or not. I see nothing wrong with what I said.
The way I read the post Trump has actually lost male support. I'd think y'all here would be happy.
While Biden gained female support. Which I don't understand.
All that said I don't know how you interpreted my post as sexist.
And I think everything you said was completely unnecessary.
I don't think I'm the one that got triggered.

 

[McLaren]

Which even by those standards would be miles ahead of Trump so I'm fine with it considering the alternative. I hate the lesser of two evils argument but sometimes it's the only option.

@Dennisch is right, though. Hindsight shows that the "lesser of two evils" is exactly what led us to Trump b/c many thought it would be miles ahead of Hillary. Caution must be exercised in assuming Biden will be miles ahead of Trump when right now, all we know for sure is that Biden carries himself way more professionally. Even then, he has had a couple slip-ups in the past few months.

 

[BobK]

Got any good suggestions?

You have Jo Jorgensen of the Libertarian Party and Howie Hawkins of the Green Party, to name two. Of course neither has a snowball's chance in hell of winning this year, but if they can get enough votes they can be in a position to be more competitive next time, @Danoff can explain just why better than I can.

If neither of them is someone you could support, then do a little digging and find someone who suits you better. If necessary, use a write-in vote.

The two-party system is broken and people saying if "I don't vote for one of the two even though I can't stand either then my vote is wasted" will just perpetuate it.

I believe a *lot* of people in 2016 voted for Trump/Clinton because he/she wasn't Clinton/Trump even though they detested both.

 

[ryzno]

I just read an interesting post somewhere.
It pretty much said, if you have no problem with the government mandating masks, you can't say anything about the government involving themselves in Portland or in Chicago after the Chief asked for help which they technically can't do.
Ze post...
Thoughts?

 

[DesertPenguin]

I'm sure it's more complex than this but making people wear a mask does not break any amendment rights?

 

[Chrunch Houston]

...Biden carries himself way more professionally. Even then, he has had a couple slip-ups in the past few months.

Past few months? Biden has been running for president for the past 32 years, and was slipping up even before that.

 

[McLaren]

If the worst thing Biden has in his history is being guilty of a plagiarism scandal from 1988, then your conservative-biased YouTuber channel is as desperate as can be to claim that should destroy his campaign. Trump has multiple plagiarism allegations in his Presidency alone, & it's the least of the things he's done wrong.

Sorry, my post remains fact. When it comes to professionalism, Biden is way more Presidential than Trump.

I just read an interesting post somewhere.
It pretty much said, if you have no problem with the government mandating masks, you can't say anything about the government involving themselves in Portland or in Chicago after the Chief asked for help which they technically can't do.
Ze post...
Thoughts?

You read it from Facebook. That alone nullifies the logic behind it considering every Facebook post is a silly attempt at "Gotcha" arguing b/c everything is black & white.

 

[PeterJB]

You have Jo Jorgensen of the Libertarian Party and Howie Hawkins of the Green Party, to name two. Of course neither has a snowball's chance in hell of winning this year, but if they can get enough votes they can be in a position to be more competitive next time, @Danoff can explain just why better than I can.

If neither of them is someone you could support, then do a little digging and find someone who suits you better. If necessary, use a write-in vote.

The two-party system is broken and people saying if "I don't vote for one of the two even though I can't stand either then my vote is wasted" will just perpetuate it.

I believe a *lot* of people in 2016 voted for Trump/Clinton because he/she wasn't Clinton/Trump even though they detested both.

The only way they'll have any chance of getting votes is if they're allowed into the televised debates. They'll run rings around Trump and Biden; Trump will get flustered and make inadvertent sexist remarks and Biden won't know where he is.

 

[Joey D]

They'll run rings around Trump and Biden; Trump will get flustered and make inadvertent sexist remarks and Biden won't know where he is.

I imagine it'd go something like this...

Moderator: What's your stance on federal income taxes? Jo you go first.

Jo Jorgensen: Taxation is theft.

Howie Hawkins: We need to end fossil fuel subsidies while giving tax breaks to those who push for clean energy.

Trump: We have the most beautiful tax system in the world, it's the biggest and best in the world. Way better than China. Did you know China is responsible for the Kung Flu and steal American jobs? They also fund these political witch hunts against me. Did you know I'm the most attack people in human history? No, you don't, the fake news media won't tell you about that.

Biden: Wait, her name is Jo, weren't you talking to me?

 

[BobK]

The only way they'll have any chance of getting votes is if they're allowed into the televised debates. They'll run rings around Trump and Biden; Trump will get flustered and make inadvertent sexist remarks and Biden won't know where he is.

That's why it's so important they get votes. If they get enough this time around, they could get into the debates next time, or the time after that. Change won't come overnight here. But you're right; either of them would eat Biden and Trum[p alive in a debate.

 

[FerrariF1GT]

The only way they'll have any chance of getting votes is if they're allowed into the televised debates.

More like if voters actually do their homework and research the candidates and where they stand. With the internet it's easier than ever; yes, I understand that not everyone has that option, but the internet sort of makes debates unnecessary. I'm pretty close to certain that more people would be interested in and vote for third-party candidates if they do research. Elections shouldn't be determined by 30-second spots and a 1v1 debate sprinkled here and there because those do nothing but promote blind loyalty to a candidate/party and taking the 'lesser of two evils' approach in voting. Trump v. Clinton should have made that clear.

Though to be honest, I give any candidate the 'benefit of the doubt' because politicians can't be trusted and are in it mostly for themselves regardless of party. But I feel more confident in voting for a third-party candidate than I do a Democrat or Republican.

 

[polysmut]

Riiiight, it’s not like a third party candidate has any chance of winning the presidency,

Not if you won't vote for them.

 

[GranTurNismo]

Not if you won't vote for them.

The problem lies far beyond voter turnout. A third party campaign can't get even close to the amount of funding and endorsements as a typical Democrat or Republican campaign, and that of course affects voter turnout.

 

[huskeR32]

I have an issue with such a high percentage of women willing to vote for someone on video MULTIPLE times touching kids in what I consider an inappropriate manner.

But Trump's "grab 'em by the 🤬" comment was fine?

 

[Chrunch Houston]

But Trump's "grab 'em by the 🤬" comment was fine?

Where's the video?

 

[UKMikey]

But Trump's "grab 'em by the 🤬" comment was fine?

Where's the video?

Spoiler: WARNING: contains Donald Trump. Also, bad language

 

[Chrunch Houston]

Spoiler: WARNING: contains Donald Trump. Also, bad language

Not that video, everyone has seen that video. I mean the one where Trump is actually grabbing them by the p****. there is not one. He was joking, those videos don't exist. Democrats have no sense of humor.

The Biden videos exist.

 

[Liquid]

The problem lies far beyond voter turnout. A third party campaign can't get even close to the amount of funding and endorsements as a typical Democrat or Republican campaign, and that of course affects voter turnout.

Do you not see the circular problem?

Third parties can't get federal support because nobody votes for them.
Nobody votes for third parties because they can't get federal support.

Don't blame me, I voted for Kodos.

 

[Joey D]

But Trump's "grab 'em by the 🤬" comment was fine?

Let's not forget this little beauty too:

 

[huskeR32]

Not that video, everyone has seen that video. I mean the one where Trump is actually grabbing them by the p****. there is not one.

Oh, so now unless there's video evidence of something, it didn't happen?

Then I'm sure you're ready to admit then that Benghazi wasn't a cover-up, Clinton's email server was never compromised, and Clinton didn't receive oral sex from Monica. No videos, so they didn't happen, right?

Give me a break, the man said he did it, while on tape. When Trump said he could get away with murder in the middle of Fifth Avenue, you know that wasn't saying anything good about his supporters, right?

The mental gymnastics you'll do for this man continues to impress.

He was joking, those videos don't exist.

So you're making your stand on him thinking sexual assault is funny? That you'll happily stake out that ground just goes to show that when you support this man, he leaves you with no good options of where to stand; ultimately, you still end up having to stand in 🤬.

Democrats have no sense of humor.

About a man who has been credibly accused of sexual assault by at least 20 people, including a 13 year old girl, joking about rape? Yeah, I guess that doesn't really hit my sense of humor. And I guess I'm supposed to feel silly about that? To quote a different Texan, "Trumpism, man."

 

[Dotini]

Our floundering President may have been handed an unexpected campaign issue on a silver platter when Antifa and the anarchists took a big crap on the BLM movement with excessive violence and arson in Portland and Seattle. He will campaign on the hoary issue of law and order. He will further incite these riots by placing many forms of federal forces in a variety of American cities, playing them like an orchestra for maximum effect. I actually think this development will be beneficial for both sides of the election, as each will inspire their followers to greater and greater height of anger, rage, and extreme positions. Participation in the election will reach never before seen proportions. The issues will be sharply and clearly drawn. The result - if any - will be a dramatic watershed pointing the way to the future for us all. God help us.

 

[Liquid]

Trump has cancelled the RNC in Florida due to covid, ostensibly saying that it isn't the appropriate thing to do.

If this isn't a significant failure of his federal-level attempts to batter through the virus and a significant failure of Florida's state-level calamitous ineptitude, I don't know what is.

 

[Dotini]

Eight reasons the election could be a disaster.

1. An Uncontrolled Pandemic
2. New Technology and New Processes
3. A Drought of Funding
4. Dislocated Voters
5. A Storm of Foreign Attacks
6. Misinformation and Disinformation
7. A Famine of Voter Protections
8. A Volcano in the Oval Office

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/07/24/2020-election-disaster-perfect-storm-372778

 

[Danoff]

What happens next will shock you...

 

[Biggles]

What happens next will shock you...

LOL.

 

[Dotini]

Legal challenges.

 

[NotThePrez]

7. A Famine of Voter Protections

Ballots only count if they're filled out with Indigo ink?

Sorrynotsorry

 

[Dotini]

Ballots only count if they're filled out with Indigo ink?

Sorrynotsorry

Mango.

 

[Imari]

I just read an interesting post somewhere.
It pretty much said, if you have no problem with the government mandating masks, you can't say anything about the government involving themselves in Portland or in Chicago after the Chief asked for help which they technically can't do.
Ze post...
Thoughts?

There are options between blindly approving or disapproving of all of a government's actions without exception.

I could, for example, agree with some and disagree with others. I could think that some are legal, despite disapproving of those actions being taken. I could think that some are illegal or unconstitutional under current law, but see the necessity of the actions in an extreme or unforeseen situation. Or any other of a number of individual opinions on specific situations and circumstances.

The idea of having a personal and individual opinion on each aspect of policy is not particularly radical, because the alternative is either "ALL AGREE" or "ALL DISAGREE" which is pants-on-head bonkers. Just because you advocate some reasonable restrictions on public social interaction does not mean that you must also agree with a 1984-style police state.

TL;DR, nuance exists.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

Let's not forget this little beauty too:

You left the part out where he banned Epstein from his club for being a pervert.

But Trump's "grab 'em by the 🤬" comment was fine?

You left the part out where he said "they let you do it". Consent matters.