The 2020 Presidential Election - Convention & General Election

[knapplc]

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

22 minutes ago, BlitzFirst said:

 

 

Well it's strange...because it's illogical to state that there are only 2 choices.

 

Yet, you find it illogical that someone wouldn't choose between those 2 choices.  I don't find it illogical at all that someone wouldn't want to choose Biden and would vote their conscience.  I find it illogical that people would try to limit the election to only 2 choices.

 

Democracy would agree with me and it would disagree with you.  So, honestly, your lack of respect toward their logic is really a lack of respect toward our democratic process and freedom of choice.  If you're cool with that type of thing.

 

As I've said since the beginning of this thread BEFORE I was going to vote Biden...creating a false dichotomy for choice flies in the face of values and freedom of our country.  Because the system is broken is no reason to just give up and not vote for who you want to be president, 3rd party or not.  

 

Dude, it's not illogical that someone wouldn't want to choose Biden. It's not illogical that someone would vote their conscience. Obviously there are more than two choices. That's why I wrote that whole part about supporting third party candidates all year, every year, not just when that someone gets in a presidential election snit. 

 

But it is illogical that voting third party will send a message this election, or achieve any political goal you hold dear BESIDES the right to vote for whomever you want. 

 

I don't really care if Democracy agrees with me or not, but it is whispering in my ear, telling me that it's very afraid of Donald Trump and wants this whole episode to be over as soon as possible. 

 

 

[Moiraine]

Let's say there are 2 events, A and B.

 

In order to increase the chance of A occurring you have to take action 1. In order to increase the chance of B occurring you can do 2, 3, or 4. Even if we all do 1, B can still occur.

 

Event A is Biden wins and we avoided potentially witnessing the fall of democracy in our country because Trump either gives up or is forcibly removed. Or A is we merely avoided increasing the fallout from having another 4 years of this trash.

 

Event B is Trump wins, or Biden wins and Trump does not give up and he is not forcibly removed. Best case scenario he does a s#!t ton more lasting damage, worst case is we witness the fall of democracy in our country.

 

You do have a choice, between 1, 2, 3, and 4. But 2, 3, and 4 (voting for Trump, voting for someone other than Biden, not voting) all increase the chance of Event B.


When it comes to voting third party, the candidate has to get momentum sooner. There has to be someone who breaks through and gets attention in 2023. There have to be changes in campaign funding or in media regulation for this to occur, or someone who's so charismatic they can't possibly be ignored. Maybe someone like Bernie but 40 and attractive.

[commando]

 

[Danny Bateman]

2 hours ago, Moiraine said:

Let's say there are 2 events, A and B.

 

In order to increase the chance of A occurring you have to take action 1. In order to increase the chance of B occurring you can do 2, 3, or 4. Even if we all do 1, B can still occur.

 

Event A is Biden wins and we avoided potentially witnessing the fall of democracy in our country because Trump either gives up or is forcibly removed. Or A is we merely avoided increasing the fallout from having another 4 years of this trash.

 

Event B is Trump wins, or Biden wins and Trump does not give up and he is not forcibly removed. Best case scenario he does a s#!t ton more lasting damage, worst case is we witness the fall of democracy in our country.

 

You do have a choice, between 1, 2, 3, and 4. But 2, 3, and 4 all increase the chance of Event B.


When it comes to voting third party, the candidate has to get momentum sooner. There has to be someone who breaks through and gets attention in 2023. There have to be changes in campaign funding or in media regulation for this to occur, or someone who's so charismatic they can't possibly be ignored. Maybe someone like Bernie but 40 and attractive.

 

Seeing it laid out like this helps illustrate the debate about third party voting a bit better.

 

In '92, Ross Perot got nearly 20% but was neither like Bernie nor young and attractive.

 

Basically for a third party candidate to be competitive, the country has got to be in the crapper with a very unpopular incumbent running or term limited, wet fart challenger(s) lacking broad appeal and somebody as charismatic as Obama or Bernie, probably white to minimize racism, and probably some alternative platform that doesn't fit neatly into the left-right spectrum to maximize appeal, so no Libertarians or Greens.

 

Basically it would have to be the perfect storm and the odds are pretty dang close to zero.

[RedDenver]

11 hours ago, FrantzHardySwag said:

"With modern roads, bridges, highways, broadband, ports and airports as a new foundation for economic growth. With pipes that transport clean water to every community. With 5 million new manufacturing and technology jobs so the future is made in America."

 

"With a health care system that lowers premiums, deductibles, and drug prices by building on the Affordable Care Act he's trying to rip away."

 

"With an education system that trains our people for the best jobs of the 21st century, where cost doesn't prevent young people from going to college, and student debt doesn't crush them when they get out."

 

"With child care and elder care that make it possible for parents to go to work and for the elderly to stay in their homes with dignity."

 

"With an immigration system that powers our economy and reflects our values. With newly empowered labor unions. With equal pay for women. With rising wages you can raise a family on. Yes, we're going to do more than praise our essential workers. We're finally going to pay them."

 

"We can, and we will, deal with climate change. It's not only a crisis, it's an enormous opportunity. An opportunity for America to lead the world in clean energy and create millions of new good-paying jobs in the process."

 

"And we can pay for these investments by ending loopholes and the president's $1.3 trillion tax giveaway to the wealthiest 1 percent and the biggest, most profitable corporations, some of which pay no tax at all."

 

"Because we don't need a tax code that rewards wealth more than it rewards work. I'm not looking to punish anyone. Far from it. But it's long past time the wealthiest people and the biggest corporations in this country paid their fair share."

 

"For our seniors, Social Security is a sacred obligation, a sacred promise made. The current president is threatening to break that promise. He's proposing to eliminate the tax that pays for almost half of Social Security without any way of making up for that lost revenue."

 

"I will not let it happen. If I'm your president, we're going to protect Social Security and Medicare. You have my word."

I bolded the only thing that resembles a policy in that whole post. The rest is just pandering that could have been said by any generic Dem for the last 40 years.

 

11 hours ago, Moiraine said:

A lot of that isn’t policy. It’s just things he’s promising. But I feel like policy is more what debates are for. And as someone else pointed out it’s on his website. 

Agreed. I'm just expressing my opinion that Biden's speeches aren't even worth tuning into because they're the same old, same old without any substance.

[Notre Dame Joe]

7 hours ago, BlitzFirst said:

 

 

Well it's strange...because it's illogical to state that there are only 2 choices.

 

Yet, you find it illogical that someone wouldn't choose between those 2 choices.  I don't find it illogical at all that someone wouldn't want to choose Biden and would vote their conscience.  I find it illogical that people would try to limit the election to only 2 choices.

 

Democracy would agree with me and it would disagree with you.  So, honestly, your lack of respect toward their logic is really a lack of respect toward our democratic process and freedom of choice.  If you're cool with that type of thing.

 

As I've said since the beginning of this thread BEFORE I was going to vote Biden...creating a false dichotomy for choice flies in the face of values and freedom of our country.  Because the system is broken is no reason to just give up and not vote for who you want to be president, 3rd party or not.  

 

I suppose the logic is that when a 3rd party garners a lot of votes, the major party adopts its positions.  Does Nebraska have any cultural memory of the Grange Populists?

[BigRedBuster]

Oh....this should be fun. 
 

 

[BigRedBuster]

Literally half the speakers are his family. And.....he’s going to speak every night. 
 

why do I get the feeling that one hell of a lot of people said they have no desire to be involved?

 

 

[BigRedBuster]

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

11 hours ago, BlitzFirst said:

 

It's illogical to reduce the choices down to 2 people because, in your personal opinion, they are the only choice...when the election has more than 2 candidates that are running for president.  People will choose 3rd party and they won't be the reason Trump gets re-elected if they do.

 

 

I don't have the power to reduce anyone's choice, so I'm not suppressing anyone's freedom. Just having a discussion about the logic of a third party vote in what is expected to be a close election. 

 

Every year there are operating third parties, and every presidential election the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, The Socialist Party, The Veterans Party, The Reform Party, the Peace and Freedom Party, and the Constitution Party have candidates on the ballot (Constitution candidate Darrell Castle actually got 200,000 votes in 2016.). They have loyal party members and vote their conscience every four years, in numbers generally too small to affect the outcome. Everyone is free to bolster their numbers if you believe in the candidate and platform.

 

On the other hand, if you oppose Trump, planned to vote Democrat, changed your mind when the choice was Biden, and vote for a third party candidate, that vote helps elect Trump. While I can appreciate voting your conscience, I'd be more impressed if you can hold forth in some detail about the candidate you're voting for. 

 

If Trump gets reelected, there will be plenty of reasons to choose from. Impotent protest votes will just be one of them. If Republicans who decide not to vote at all outnumber them, it could flip the election the other way. Democracy is weird. 

[FrantzHardySwag]

4 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

Literally half the speakers are his family. And.....he’s going to speak every night. 
 

why do I get the feeling that one hell of a lot of people said they have no desire to be involved?

 

 

This is from Fox News. The RNC decided to not alter their platform for 2020 - they are literally using the same platform from 2016....They're putting forth no effort what so ever. 

 

"The party’s current platform – which was adopted at the convention in Cleveland, Ohio, four years ago – contains outdated references such as condemnations of the “current” president, who at the time was President Barack Obama. The platform also includes language opposing same-sex marriage and is supportive of gay conversion therapy. On the other hand, it does not include references to newer issues like the movement to defund police supported by many on the left and vehemently opposed by most Republicans."

[BigRedBuster]

27 minutes ago, FrantzHardySwag said:

This is from Fox News. The RNC decided to not alter their platform for 2020 - they are literally using the same platform from 2016....They're putting forth no effort what so ever. 

 

"The party’s current platform – which was adopted at the convention in Cleveland, Ohio, four years ago – contains outdated references such as condemnations of the “current” president, who at the time was President Barack Obama. The platform also includes language opposing same-sex marriage and is supportive of gay conversion therapy. On the other hand, it does not include references to newer issues like the movement to defund police supported by many on the left and vehemently opposed by most Republicans."

They’ve been working so hard at this 

[Notre Dame Joe]

8 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

 

A left leaning political group claims to be pro-hunter?  That means they are pro-gun as well.  Funny how they weren't mentioned at last week's pseudo-convention.

[funhusker]

21 minutes ago, Notre Dame Joe said:

 

A left leaning political group claims to be pro-hunter?  That means they are pro-gun as well.  Funny how they weren't mentioned at last week's pseudo-convention.

Christ almighty...