US Presidential Election 2020 Thread II - Judgement Day(s)

Lumen

TheChizler wrote: »

As much as I like to give out about Trump any reports I read about that didn't put it like that. He asked the military for options, they presented some, and he decided against military action. Sounds like a pretty regular course of events for any president. He's a big enough lunatic with what he honestly does without having to twist normal events against him.

The fact that we know about it suggests that it is deliberate sabre rattling. I guess that is also normal.

It is worth remembering, though, that Trump has sole authority for launching a pre-emptive nuclear strike until he is out of office.

Banana Republic 1

TheChizler wrote: »

As much as I like to give out about Trump any reports I read about that didn't put it like that. He asked the military for options, they presented some, and he decided against military action. Sounds like a pretty regular course of events for any president. He's a big enough lunatic with what he honestly does without having to twist normal events against him.

That was they way it was put on channel 4 news last evening.

seamus

Lumen wrote: »

The fact that we know about it suggests that it is deliberate sabre rattling. I guess that is also normal.

It is worth remembering, though, that Trump has sole authority for launching a pre-emptive nuclear strike until he is out of office.

At this point, there is no option so crazy that he is not considering it.

He might be wondering if he can provoke a war that is of such gravity that it would be sufficient to declare a state of emergency and keep him in power.

Such as an active conflict involving a nuclear power. China and Russia are personal allies of his and European countries would be a step too far, but provoking Iran might just be enough to drag Israel into a conflict if they were attacked in retaliation.

His evangelical base would lap it up. Small pockets of it have been looking for the US to start a biblical "end times" conflict in the Middle East for decades.

jmayo

Tell me how wrote: »

Trump won a smaller percentage of the turnout than he did in 2016.
He's less popular now than he was then. No surprise there of course, he's been abysmal.

He won 62,985,106 million votes in 2016.
He won 73,438,425 million votes in 2020.

That is over 10 million of a difference.

It doesn't matter what % of anything he has, he got 10 million extra people to vote for him.

Hence he is more fooking popular to 10 million people than he was last time.

And to me that is bat shyte fooking crazy. :eek:

And yes Biden won more votes than him and is more popular than him in the overall scheme of things.

But no matter what percentages you pull out, Trump is preferable to 10 million extra people than he was in 2016.

Again bat shyte crazy but there you have it.:rolleyes:

V8 Interceptor wrote: »

That's some serious messing with statistics you're doing there. 10 million more voted for him than last time yet he's less popular?

Its actually quite something when you consider virtually the entire media, print and TV, along with big tech spent 4 years discrediting him.

Exactly.
There are two ways of looking at this.
And it is sad the fact you have to explain that fact to some people around here.

If a companies customers went up by 10 million units one would see it as increasing popularity.
If a TV network viewers went up by 10 million one would view it as being more popular than before no matter what the fook the other networks were doing.

Wanderer78 wrote: »

....and they were right, he's clearly useless at politics and also in business, in fact there's not much he's really good at, I suspect he's terrible at golf to, even with all his practice

I reckon he gets around in 30 under par.

Himself and Rocket man could have a great game.

VinLieger wrote: »

Yes he won a lower percentage of the total turnout than he did last time therefore he is less popular than he was in 2016 with the total number of voters.

Just look at the numbers.
73 million people voted for him in 2020 as opposed to 63 million in 2016.

The voter turnout is far greater this time than last time, but he got more votes this time.


If he was less popular than 2016 he would have got less then 63 million votes.

More people who didn't vote last time got off their asses and bothered to turn out to vote against him.
That was the difference.
The feckers who couldn't give a shyte in 2016 and who hated Hilary got out and voted this time.

Chips Lovell

I seriously doubt it. His entire presidency has been characterised by inaction camouflaged by empty rhetoric. It's quite the stretch to think that, even if he wanted to, he'd be able to manage something as consequential as starting a war.

robinph

jmayo wrote: »

If a companies customers went up by 10 million units one would see it as increasing popularity.
If a TV network viewers went up by 10 million one would view it as being more popular than before no matter what the fook the other networks were doing.

If one TV network increases it's viewership by 10 million and the other increases it by 50 million then the one which only managed 10 million is going to have it's shareholders knocking at the door wanting to know WTF is going on with the failure in a massively growing market, the CEO will get booted out the door unceremoniously, and they will then likely soon get bought up by the bigger network.

VinLieger

jmayo wrote: »

If a companies customers went up by 10 million units one would see it as increasing popularity.
If a TV network viewers went up by 10 million one would view it as being more popular than before no matter what the fook the other networks were doing.

No they wouldn't, if the total available market increases but your market share actually decreases regardless of your total number going up questions would absolutely be asked about why the others went up more. Networks absolutely care about how well the others are doing vs themselves as regards overall market share.

everlast75

TheChizler wrote: »

As much as I like to give out about Trump any reports I read about that didn't put it like that. He asked the military for options, they presented some, and he decided against military action. Sounds like a pretty regular course of events for any president. He's a big enough lunatic with what he honestly does without having to twist normal events against him.

Context is everything.

It would be worth checking into why Iran is doing the actions that have given rise to this situation.

Carfacemandog

everlast75 wrote: »

Context is everything.

It would be worth checking into why Iran is doing the actions that have given rise to this situation.

Well the US assassinated their second in charge (while in a third country) for a start. Imagine Iran had assassinated Pence during his visit to Ireland, half their country would have been reduced to ash by now.

everlast75

Carfacemandog wrote: »

Well the US assassinated their second in charge (while in a third country) for a start. Imagine Iran had assassinated Pence during his visit to Ireland, half their country would have been reduced to ash by now.

Exactly.

Obama had things moving in the right direction. It wasn't perfect, but it was progress.

Just like immigration control.

In waddles Trump, rips it all up, makes things infinitely worse, makes a balls of trying to fix it and proclaims it to the best ever solution or that he is the only one that can fix it.

You could rinse and repeat that for pretty much every thing he touched for the past 4 years.

StringerBell

V8 Interceptor wrote: »

That's some serious messing with statistics you're doing there. 10 million more voted for him than last time yet he's less popular?

Its actually quite something when you consider virtually the entire media, print and TV, along with big tech spent 4 years discrediting him.

Not really though, not virtually the entire media, print and TV. You had one side of the divide discrediting him (some would say reporting accurately on him for the most part though certainly there are bias on both sides) and you had one side of the divide who broadcast the message that everything he did was right, that he was fighting the good fight for the "real" Americans and that the other media were their enemy. Echo chambers go both ways unfortunately and in the sports fan society that seems to be the American political landscape its us against them. You are red or blue and thats that for the most part.

I look forward to digging into the statistics when all is said and done regarding voter turnout, demographics and raw numbers but for now it looks like he didn't really increase his vote share? Biden improved dramatically on Clintons vote share in terms of raw numbers but I will wait until there is some good data to analyse

Raw numbers alone can be misleading. Simply saying trump gained 10 million voters is nice, but pointless. The electorate will have grown substantially in those 4 years so if he keeps those who voted for him last time by and large and continues to attract some support from people who were too young to vote for him last time the raw numbers increase. Its also why you wouldn't place too much stock in the "most votes of any President Elect ever" or the "Stock Market is at an all time high" headlines.

StringerBell

Got sent a video this morning of a fox news host losing it a little with one of the trump spokespeople who couldn't answer the simple questions, instructive stuff

EltonJohn69

StringerBell wrote: »

Got sent a video this morning of a fox news host losing it a little with one of the trump spokespeople who couldn't answer the simple questions, instructive stuff

Link ?

Tell me how

StringerBell wrote: »

Got sent a video this morning of a fox news host losing it a little with one of the trump spokespeople who couldn't answer the simple questions, instructive stuff

EltonJohn69 wrote: »

Link ?

Pretty sure it was this one.

It's 8+ minutes but the interview is only up to 4:16.
The person after it makes a valid point, when even Fox are saying they don't know what you are at, you've pretty much gone down the rabbit hole.

sdanseo

I think it's about time for the 25th amendment. Nine GOP Senators have apparently acknowledged Biden and so if presented with a valid case by the Cabinet would surely vote to in effect suspend him:
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/republicans-who-have-broken-trump-congratulate-biden-his-win-n1247278

AMENDMENT XXV
Passed by Congress July 6, 1965. Ratified February 10, 1967.

Note: Article II, section 1, of the Constitution was affected by the 25th amendment.

Section 1.
In case of the removal of the President from office or of his death or resignation, the Vice President shall become President.

Section 2.
Whenever there is a vacancy in the office of the Vice President, the President shall nominate a Vice President who shall take office upon confirmation by a majority vote of both Houses of Congress.

Section 3.
Whenever the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that he is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, and until he transmits to them a written declaration to the contrary, such powers and duties shall be discharged by the Vice President as Acting President.

Section 4.
Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President.

Thereafter, when the President transmits to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives his written declaration that no inability exists, he shall resume the powers and duties of his office unless the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit within four days to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office. Thereupon Congress shall decide the issue, assembling within forty-eight hours for that purpose if not in session. If the Congress, within twenty-one days after receipt of the latter written declaration, or, if Congress is not in session, within twenty-one days after Congress is required to assemble, determines by two-thirds vote of both Houses that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall continue to discharge the same as Acting President; otherwise, the President shall resume the powers and duties of his office.

StringerBell

Tell me how wrote: »

Pretty sure it was this one.

It's 8+ minutes but the interview is only up to 4:16.
The person after it makes a valid point, when even Fox are saying they don't know what you are at, you've pretty much gone down the rabbit hole.

Yeah that was it but it was a much shorter video, must have just been the end of the interview

jmayo

robinph wrote: »

If one TV network increases it's viewership by 10 million and the other increases it by 50 million then the one which only managed 10 million is going to have it's shareholders knocking at the door wanting to know WTF is going on with the failure in a massively growing market, the CEO will get booted out the door unceremoniously, and they will then likely soon get bought up by the bigger network.

VinLieger wrote: »

No they wouldn't, if the total available market increases but your market share actually decreases regardless of your total number going up questions would absolutely be asked about why the others went up more. Networks absolutely care about how well the others are doing vs themselves as regards overall market share.

Oh FFS.
The TV network was just a simple analogous situation as regards viewing figures, not to be taken literally as to whether or not network execs would be fired or whether or not the network would be bought out.
Jeeze.

Look at it this way if Trump was less popular in 2020 than 2016 he would have gotten less than 63 million votes.
But he didn't, he got 73 million votes.

Now of course you will say more people voted for the other guy and they did, but my point is his popularity fecking increased by 10 million.

Granted his unpopularity also increased massively because more people voted for the opposition.

Someone better phone him with the good news about how both his huge gains in popularity and unpopularity.

He won both BY A LOT

You could say it was a WIN WIN.

VinLieger

jmayo wrote: »

Oh FFS.
The TV network was just a simple analogous situation as regards viewing figures, not to be taken literally as to whether or not network execs would be fired or whether or not the network would be bought out.
Jeeze.

Your analogy was poor and didn't fit the purpose you thought it did, don't be annoyed that others point that out.

harr

Will Trumps Constant wild claims on Twitter affect his running again in 4 years ? Will the GOP get sick of him and once out of the White House won’t be put for forward for re-election again.
Also why does Twitter allow him spout such wild claims without total censorship , I know they have warnings on his posts but you would imagine he would only be allowed do this for so long.

Quin_Dub

harr wrote: »

Will Trumps Constant wild claims on Twitter affect his running again in 4 years ? Will the GOP get sick of him and once out of the White House won’t be put for forward for re-election again.
Also why does Twitter allow him spout such wild claims without total censorship , I know they have warnings on his posts but you would imagine he would only be allowed do this for so long.

Right now , Trump holds the GOP Electorate in the palm of his hand , whether the GOP Grandees like it or not.

How long that lasts for and whether he is a viable candidate in 2024 remains to be seen.

Once he's out of office there are an awful lot of things that could happen to impact his current status within the GOP and with it's voters.

spacecoyote

harr wrote: »

Will Trumps Constant wild claims on Twitter affect his running again in 4 years ? Will the GOP get sick of him and once out of the White House won’t be put for forward for re-election again.
Also why does Twitter allow him spout such wild claims without total censorship , I know they have warnings on his posts but you would imagine he would only be allowed do this for so long.

They've said that he'll lose the essential immunity to posting rubbish as soon as he is out of office.

Cant see the GOP just jettisoning him out to the wilderness, that's too big a risk to them of splitting their base

harr

spacecoyote wrote: »

They've said that he'll lose the essential immunity to posting rubbish as soon as he is out of office.

Cant see the GOP just jettisoning him out to the wilderness, that's too big a risk to them of splitting their base

Surely their base is well split already ? I have
relatives in Arizona all would be Republicans and in this election some actually voted for Biden and argue among themselves more than they do with friends and family who would be democrats .
I think the base is well and truly split ..

Quin_Dub

harr wrote: »

Surely their base is well split already ? I have
relatives in Arizona all would be Republicans and in this election some actually voted for Biden and argue among themselves more than they do with friends and family who would be democrats .
I think the base is well and truly split ..

There is a certain cohort of traditional GOP voters that voted for Biden this time out , not sure it's a massive group though.

If you look at the states where Biden won, but the GOP Senator held their seats -

The % difference in those vote totals gives you a rough idea of that impact.

It's not massive , significant in terms of winning/losing and election but it's not a huge number overal I'd suggest.

serfboard

Quin_Dub wrote: »

There is a certain cohort of traditional GOP voters that voted for Biden this time out , not sure it's a massive group though.

If you look at the states where Biden won, but the GOP Senator held their seats -

The % difference in those vote totals gives you a rough idea of that impact.

It's not massive , significant in terms of winning/losing and election but it's not a huge number overal I'd suggest.

Was wondering about this myself.

Does anyone know of a total nationwide figure of Dem Vs GOP votes for President, Senate and House - i.e. National total number and % of votes per party in Presidental and Congressional elections?

Itssoeasy

I don’t understand why the transition team for Biden and Harris don’t bring a lawsuit(seems to be a way to focus minds in America) against the director of the GSA. Forget trump and his pity party, Emily Murphy as director is ignoring the law which her predecessors have followed. It says apparent winner which under any metric joe Biden is yet she seems hell bent on trying to stay loyal to trump who we know won’t be loyal to her if history is any indication. Having just read up on her time in this job she’s not exactly getting top marks.

prawnsambo

Itssoeasy wrote: »

I don’t understand why the transition team for Biden and Harris don’t bring a lawsuit(seems to be a way to focus minds in America) against the director of the GSA. Forget trump and his pity party, Emily Murphy as director is ignoring the law which her predecessors have followed. It says apparent winner which under any metric joe Biden is yet she seems hell bent on trying to stay loyal to trump who we know won’t be loyal to her if history is any indication. Having just read up on her time in this job she’s not exactly getting top marks.

The thinking is that Trump is looking for this kind of approach. He thinks he has something they want. What he would look for in return is anyone's guess, but it's the way he thinks. So they are literally ignoring him and pointedly replying to questions on the matter as if it was of no consequence. Biden said the other day that Harris being on the intel committee means the team have access to the information they need anyway. Biden himself was 8 years in the WH, so what does he need? Money is about the only thing and that's minor enough. So they won't pander to Trump on this in any way until Trump is forced by events to admit reality.

Foxtrol

prawnsambo wrote: »

The thinking is that Trump is looking for this kind of approach. He thinks he has something they want. What he would look for in return is anyone's guess, but it's the way he thinks. So they are literally ignoring him and pointedly replying to questions on the matter as if it was of no consequence. Biden said the other day that Harris being on the intel committee means the team have access to the information they need anyway. Biden himself was 8 years in the WH, so what does he need? Money is about the only thing and that's minor enough. So they won't pander to Trump on this in any way until Trump is forced by events to admit reality.

They need insight into the details of policies and plans etc. For example, they currently have very little insight into the details of what the current plan is for vaccine rollout. Biden's team can have their own plans but if what Trump has in motion completely goes against that then they need to know in advance, otherwise they go in day 1 with no knowledge and have to start from scratch and it will cause huge delays. If they know now they can be ready to go when they arrive and take action straight away.

prawnsambo

Foxtrol wrote: »

They need insight into the details of policies and plans etc. For example, they currently have very little insight into the details of what the current plan is for vaccine rollout. Biden's team can have their own plans but if what Trump has in motion completely goes against that then they need to know in advance, otherwise they go in day 1 with no knowledge and have to start from scratch and it will cause huge delays. If they know now they can be ready to go when they arrive and take action straight away.

This will all resolve before January 20th. It's not as though Biden doesn't know what resources he'll need. Whether the Trump admin has anything in train is another question that I'd be 50/50 on in any case.

Itssoeasy

prawnsambo wrote: »

This will all resolve before January 20th. It's not as though Biden doesn't know what resources he'll need. Whether the Trump admin has anything in train is another question that I'd be 50/50 on in any case.

It’s not the point though whether Biden knows how it works it’s a legal process that has happened since 1963 since the act became law.

prawnsambo

Itssoeasy wrote: »

It’s not the point though whether Biden knows how it works it’s a legal process that has happened since 1963 since the act became law.

The point is not to pander to Trump and just leave him swinging in the wind. He will have to concede eventually. The last thing Biden wants or needs is to seem beholden to him. The process will work itself through.