Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 329: There's No Debate

(+) Yeah! (+)

Jakyl25 posted...

https://twitter.com/donaldjtrumpjr/status/1317480957763592192?s=21

The complete lack of self-awareness could fill a black hole

Ha ha hahahahaha that tweet is hilarious.

---

no troll, are you high right now lms?

---

Corrik7 posted...

Ha ha hahahahaha that tweet is hilarious.

You mean because of the irony right?

...right?
---

Cuz it's just funny

---

FFDragon posted...

no troll, are you high right now lms?

No, I say you're only thinking of Trump as a candidate. If he loses this election it will be because of all the controversies that have mounted over his term as President.

---

LinkMarioSamus posted...

First off, Trump didn't have a country to run when he first campaigned to be President. Second, while I agree that without the pandemic Trump would be more likely to win this election, the fact is that controversies over his leadership have been mounting all throughout his presidency and, well, the idea is that when you're the President, you are head of state and are supposed to, I dunno, LEAD. All the way Trump seemed like he only cared about what would get him re-elected and this pandemic made it official. Plus the race riots would probably happen this year even without the pandemic. All Trump did beforehand was merely preside over a booming economy that he arguably wasn't even responsible for in the first place. The mark of a great leader is how well they respond in a crisis, not how well things get under their rule, and Trump completely and utterly failed that test and might pay dearly for it.

Also, this pandemic was caused by the interconnectedness of modern society (which I'm not arguing is a bad thing, more that it just comes with consequences), so the idea of imagining an alternate reality without it is kind of insulting. Things will not magically be back to normal afterwards, since that normal is what caused the pandemic in the first place.

Trump would have won if no pandemic

---

LinkMarioSamus posted...

Also, this pandemic was caused by the interconnectedness of modern society (which I'm not arguing is a bad thing, more that it just comes with consequences), so the idea of imagining an alternate reality without it is kind of insulting. Things will not magically be back to normal afterwards, since that normal is what caused the pandemic in the first place.

I mean, sure, but worth noting the interconnectedness leading to disease has been going on for a long time.

The Black Plague in Europe was most likely brought from global trade routes from China.

After Spain made first contact in the Americas, an estimated 90% of the indigenous population died of disease. In fact, so many people died that year that it was theorized to have caused global cooling:

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-47063973

I'm not sure how far back you would need to go to be in a pre-global trade era of the world, but...probably really far back.

---

Corrik7 posted...

Cuz it's just funny

Ooooo...kay
---

metroid composite posted...

I mean, sure, but worth noting the interconnectedness leading to disease has been going on for a long time.

The Black Plague in Europe was most likely brought from global trade routes from China.

After Spain made first contact in the Americas, an estimated 90% of the indigenous population died of disease. In fact, so many people died that year that it was theorized to have caused global cooling:

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-47063973

I'm not sure how far back you would need to go to be in a pre-global trade era of the world, but...probably really far back.

I meant more the world is becoming even more globalized than it was back then. That's how a plague from China spreads so fast.

---

TotallyNotMI posted...

Isn't Sasse up for reelection? Is there any chance this hurts him? Enough Republicans vote for Trump but refuse to vote for Sasse?

I can't find any polling which makes me think Sasse is winning handily.

Sasses opponent sexually harassed a staffer and then refused to drop out so half the Democrats are staging a write in campaign for someone else.

so less than absolutely not

---

Corrik7 posted...

Trump would have won if no pandemic

Technically Trump can still win, but I agree his re-election is more certain without a pandemic. But it's the president's JOB to guide their country through a crisis and Trump has idiotically still been concerned with campaigning first and foremost. Re-election is certainly important, but it should not be a sitting president's top priority!

---

you've gone astray in assuming trump cares one bit about governing

he does not

at all

ever

and a majority of his base does not care either

they want him to own the libs and hold these rallies

and as long as he does that, they will vote for him

I'd go as far as to say he'd have lost MORE votes if he governed more and campaigned less.

---

Lms, you get way too caught up in should's and could's.

---

Just voted. Pretty frustrated I didn't investigate write in candidate options for the races with no Democrat running, even though I knew they were gonna be there.

---

Graph of covid cases by state since June 1

https://dangoodspeed.com/covid/total-cases-since-june

---

Trump was still polling well behind when he was benefitting from the rally round the flag effect early in the pandemic. Its possible that it will cause his loss if it ends up close in just a few key states, but all thats really happened is Trump being pushed down to his base and Biden being pushed up to where he was when he announced he was running. There has been little net change since January. Trump went up and then back down.

Of course: Trump could still win despite his near-inevitable strong popular vote loss. He only needs to win just three of four swing states (Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida) and narrowly hold the Republican-ish states that have been trending Democrat (North Carolina, Georgia, Arizona). He can do that despite the fact that a majority of the country is about to tell him no for the second time.

The fact is that countries with more proportional, more democratic electoral systems are much less vulnerable to extremists, because most people oppose extreme views. Look at the following list:

USA
UK
Hungary
India
Russia

All democracies that have been severely decayed by openly corrupt right wing governments, all dangerously exploiting nationalism and damaging world peace. And all of these have primarily first-past-the-post electoral systems that allowed the extremists to gain power despite not having majority support. You can throw in Turkey too, which has a proportional system, but a 10% threshold that meant that Erdogan could get a majority in the first place on only 30% of the vote. Thats nearly an authoritarian clean sweep. Its a miracle Canada has managed to hold off despite its system, but to be honest I give them 20 years tops if electoral reform doesnt happen soon.

Electoral reform is a really urgent issue. In the US this means getting rid of the electoral college. That is essential no matter who wins.

---

FFDragon posted...

you've gone astray in assuming trump cares one bit about governing

he does not

at all

ever

and a majority of his base does not care either

they want him to own the libs and hold these rallies

and as long as he does that, they will vote for him

I'd go as far as to say he'd have lost MORE votes if he governed more and campaigned less.

I hate to sound like I'm backtracking, but that kind of was my point - that Trump's method of rising to power was never going to sustain him in the long term outside of his base. I do agree he'd have lost more votes if he focused more on governing, but that's mostly because his base would have disavowed him if he actually did his job and those against him wouldn't suddenly come around to him just because he did the bare minimum - basically they aren't willing to pat Trump on the back for exhibiting basic human decency. The point was that Trump is in this spot in the first place because he doesn't care about actually leading the nation.

---

Early voting just opened in NV. I drove my parents to their local voting location to drop off their mail ballots, and the line was incredible. I've voted in two presidential elections in this state, and I can say with confidence that today's early voting line had at least 5x the people of any election day line I've been in.

And this is a bougie rec center nestled in the suburbs, not a busy urban area.

Immediate anecdotal reaction: Trump's getting slaughtered here.

---

https://twitter.com/spettypi/status/1317592787727142913

Amazing

---

look lotm either he is or he isn't. 50/50.

that's just probability

---

Jakyl25 posted...

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1317262449469509632?s=21

Another good reason to vote Biden

"THE VIRUS AFFECTS VIRTUALLY NOBODY"

meanwhile every single person at his rally is wearing a mask lol

---

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/media-isnt-biased-against-trump-biden-liberal-news.html

I've been saying this for years!

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/media-isnt-biased-against-trump-biden-liberal-news.html

I've been saying this for years!

I read the comments, and now I really want to know what Trump would say if he was told Flat-Earthers love him but could he tell them the world is round.

---

LordoftheMorons posted...

https://nymag.com/intelligencer/article/media-isnt-biased-against-trump-biden-liberal-news.html

I've been saying this for years!

I agree with the premise, but the supporting evidence Jonathan Chait used up front, that the media didnt ask Joe the exact same question because itd be too easy just undercuts the entire article for me.

If the media asked Joe Biden are the Democrats a front for Satanic pedophiles, thats a massive lose-lose question for Joe. Hed be hurt just by the question being asked.

And yes I know all of this isnt the point

---

Osoff's campaign reporting they've received over a million dollars in donations in a single day as a direct result of Perdue mocking Harris' name.

---

https://twitter.com/acyn/status/1317577844835319809?s=21

Dangerous rhetoric
---

So shocking that a cool and safe militia would hear something like that and try to take matters into their own hands.

---

If it's "dangerous rhetoric" for Trump to call for his political opponents to be locked up, doesn't that imply that it would be wrong for the Democrats to prosecute members of the Trump administration (or even Trump himself) for any crimes they've committed?

No, seriously, what's the difference? Sure, we can point to a ton of laws that they've broken. Does that provide sufficient justification considering that a large portion of Americans would agree that all Democrats should be prosecuted for treason simply for opposing Trump? Is there a way for Democrats to punish Trump without it being used to set a precedent that "the party in power is allowed to arrest its opponents"?
---

Xeybozn posted...

If it's "dangerous rhetoric" for Trump to call for his political opponents to be locked up, doesn't that imply that it would be wrong for the Democrats to prosecute members of the Trump administration (or even Trump himself) for any crimes they've committed?

No, seriously, what's the difference? Sure, we can point to a ton of laws that they've broken. Does that provide sufficient justification considering that a large portion of Americans would agree that all Democrats should be prosecuted for treason simply for opposing Trump? Is there a way for Democrats to punish Trump without it being used to set a precedent that "the party in power is allowed to arrest its opponents"?

Biden shouldn't be directing the DoJ to prosecute Trump (which would be the equivalent thing). Independent prosecutors, however, should also not be barred from investigating Trump and prosecuting him if the evidence warrants it (which I suspect it would).

---

...the difference is actual crimes.

---

It shouldnt be the Democrats prosecuting Trump. There are plenty of potential crimes hes committed that arent related to his political power.

It would be wrong for Biden to order his Attorney General to go looking for Trump crimes the way Trump does with Barr looking for Obama crimes.
---

UshiromiyaEva posted...

...the difference is actual crimes.

That's also exactly what Trump's supporters think, though. Their claim (which admittedly has little if any basis in reality) is that the Democrats are the ones committing the real crimes. Letting the administration get away with all they've done would be terrible on many levels, but if going after them is just seen as political revenge then it might be the lesser of two evils.

As for the question of "independent prosecutors", won't anyone who takes legal action against Trump be seen as a "Democrat"? I agree that it'd better for Biden to not order his DoJ to go after Trump, but it's not like state-level prosecution is going to be considered any more legitimate.
---

Xeybozn posted...

That's also exactly what Trump's supporters think, though.

But there's a difference between feelings and reality.

Which, I mean, is the entire original BASIS of the Trump campaign, that how you feel matters more than the truth.

These aren't reasonable people.

---

Failing to set the precedent that the president is not above the law for Nixon allowed Trump to be way worse. There's significant danger in him not being held accountable as well.

---

I guess thats the problem of the Trump supporters.

If Obama or Hillary were prosecuted with actual evidence, yeah there would be a sizable chunk who would whine about it, but I think most people would accept it.
---

Also no President should be ordering his DoJ to do anything
---

Xeybozn posted...

That's also exactly what Trump's supporters think, though. Their claim (which admittedly has little if any basis in reality) is that the Democrats are the ones committing the real crimes. Letting the administration get away with all they've done would be terrible on many levels, but if going after them is just seen as political revenge then it might be the lesser of two evils.

Ignoring facts just because Trump supporters are idiots that don't believe in facts is a pretty dumb reason to just let them get away with committing actual crimes.

I'm not sure I understand your argument. So far, it's basically "If anybody on the other side believes X, then we shouldn't do Y."

---

StealThisSheen posted...

Ignoring facts just because Trump supporters are idiots that don't believe in facts is a pretty dumb reason to just let them get away with committing actual crimes.

I'm not sure I understand your argument. So far, it's basically "If anybody on the other side believes X, then we shouldn't do Y."

I think its an attempt to heal the divide? But I really dont think it actually makes a difference.
---

Also going back to the original point, its especially dangerous for a person in power to pre-emptively determine guilt

Its one thing for his supporters to chant lock her up, but for him to do it is much different.

I dont think you would ever hear a prominent elected Democrat say that Trump should be anything more definitive than investigated or at worst prosecuted.
---

I believe his argument is that prosecuting Trump would open up a can of worms, so we shouldn't do it. I agree with the first point and disagree with the second but I don't think the idea is incoherent.

Currently my best bet is that Trump, at some point in the middle of refusing to admit defeat, will declare that he is pardoning himself of any crimes he may or may not ever be accused of committing. Can he do that? Dunno, but it's hardly the first issue he's had his lawyers stall indefinitely.
---

He may be able to do it federally, but its not a blanket pardon of any crimes he has ever or may ever commit
---

I mainly disagree with the premise, then.

I do agree that the president himself should not be telling the DoJ to do anything. I don't agree with the idea that independent prosecutors investigating/prosecuting Trump would open a can of worms, though. It'd be different if no actual crimes had been committed, but if there are, then it really doesn't matter what the other side feels. Facts are facts. Crimes have been committed. The other side thinking other crimes have been committed when they haven't doesn't change that.

---

He may be able to do it federally, but its not a blanket pardon of any crimes he has ever or may ever commit

With regard to state crimes, it doesn't really matter what a hypothetical President Biden and his Department of Justice think, does it?

Edit: And with regard to pardons for offenses that have not yet been charged or committed, I think that's the kind of issue which a 6-3 conservative court headed by Roberts will have a powerful desire to avoid reaching a conclusion on.
---

MalcolmMasher posted...

He may be able to do it federally, but its not a blanket pardon of any crimes he has ever or may ever commit

With regard to state crimes, it doesn't really matter what a hypothetical President Biden and his Department of Justice think, does it?

Edit: And with regard to crimes for offenses that have not yet been charged or committed, I think that's the kind of issue which a 6-3 conservative court headed by Roberts will have a powerful desire to avoid reaching a conclusion on.

Right, and thats why I dont think any consequences for Trump will come from a hypothetical Biden DoJ, barring a new wave of evidence
---

Just laying it out there, but Trump has already said he may leave the country if he loses.

Obviously from a rally standpoint the idea is "because America will be doomed!", but from a more realistic standpoint....it would be to avoid prosecution.

---

For what it's worth, I don't disagree that Trump (and the rest) should face prosecution for all the crimes they keep committing. It's definitely better than the alternative of just letting them get away with everything. I guess what I'm really wondering is whether it's at all possible to convince America that it's necessary and not just another escalation in partisan bickering. How can we sell people on "Prosecute Trump!" as good while calling Trump's similar words on his opponents "dangerous"? I really don't want to wake up in 2025 with a GOP president determined to jail all Democrats while the people shrug it off as just another slight escalation of what both sides do.
---

UshiromiyaEva posted...

Just laying it out there, but Trump has already said he may leave the country if he loses.

Obviously from a rally standpoint the idea is "because America will be doomed!", but from a more realistic standpoint....it would be to avoid prosecution.

Sadly for him, travel to other countries is somewhat difficult at the moment
---

It is very unlikely Trump will be prosecuted for anything. People will want to move on more than anything.

The IRS might come after him but that is the best you could hope for.

---

I'm sure his dictator buddies will be willing to open doors.
---

Xeybozn posted...

How can we sell people on "Prosecute Trump!" as good while calling Trump's similar words on his opponents "dangerous"?

Well I mostly was calling his words dangerous because they energize vigilante militias like the Wolverine Watchdogs
---