President Trump and US politics catchall

[Rinkals]

This doesn't make any sense. Not voting at all doesn't confer any advantage on the incumbent because all candidates in the election are starting from 0 votes, the incumbent does not have a head start because he or she is already in office.

Trump is trying to block postal voting and he's doing it for a reason.

He's doing it because he knows that a low turnout will benefit him.

So, even if you don't explicitly support Trump, if you refuse to vote, you are complicit in his re-election.

I'm not sure what I can say to make this clearer.

No, you are conflating two separate issues. Suppressing voter turnout en masse is not the same as individual people abstaining. One is preventing people from being able to vote at all, taking away their franchise, the other is someone choosing not exercise their right to vote.

Abstaining from voting is a political act in itself if it is done thoughtfully rather than just due to laziness or apathy and it is a rejection of the choices offered or the political process. Even then you could make the argument that people who don't vote due to apathy are only apathetic because they feel that voting is pointless so voting one way or the other won't profoundly affect their lives.

No I'm not.

I'm not conflating anything.

I'm pointing out that a vote withheld will help Trump's re-election. I'm using the fact that Trump wants to disenfranchise as many voters as possible to point to why withholding your vote will help him get re-elected: I'm certainly not mistaking one for the other as you claim.

I'm not entirely convinced that refusing to vote is a valid political act, but let's say you are right and that withholding your vote as part of political activism is an effective course to take, do you think that it helps the challenger or does it help the incumbent? I would argue that the latter is normally the beneficiary of a low turnout generally, but in this case, it should be obvious that Trump stands to gain the most.

Ergo; if you are happy with the way things are, then don't bother to vote. Or vote for Trump.

One would hope that the American Electorate will vote is large enough numbers to make the point entirely moot, but if they don't (and, from what I've seen over the last few years, that cannot be taken for granted) your vote withheld could be all Trump needs to prevail in November,

[Punter15]

If you don’t vote then you don’t get to moan about the result. You may not like the choices, but if you leave it up to everyone else and then throw stones, you’re a dick.

(I don’t mean you personally before you get all antsy)

[Rinkals]

If you don’t vote then you don’t get to moan about the result. You may not like the choices, but if you leave it up to everyone else and then throw stones, you’re a dick.

(I don’t mean you personally before you get all antsy)

Why would I get antsy about that?

You are perfectly right: if you have the vote, you should use it: and if you don't you are complicit in the result. Which is basically what I am saying.

[Fangle]

No matter how bad the Democratic contender there are those who will never vote Republican. And vice verse.

For that reason there will be many Republican abstainers in November. So if Biden can generate some enthusiasm, he should walk it.

[Rinkals]

No matter how bad the Democratic contender there are those who will never vote Republican. And vice verse.

For that reason there will be many Republican abstainers in November. So if Biden can generate some enthusiasm, he should walk it.

Perhaps not.

Trump's base will go through hell and high water to have him re-elected, though.

Obviously, you have the "never trumpers", but even they lack the bat-shit tenacity of Trump's base.

What worries me is the voters who say that Biden's just as bad, just as senile, just as tainted with nepotism and corruption, so they're not going to vote.

[Raggs]

Never Trump hardly seems an unreasonable position though. If the dems found someone worse, then I guess they may be in a tough place.

[Fangle]

No matter how bad the Democratic contender there are those who will never vote Republican. And vice verse.

For that reason there will be many Republican abstainers in November. So if Biden can generate some enthusiasm, he should walk it.

Perhaps not.

Trump's base will go through hell and high water to have him re-elected, though.

Obviously, you have the "never trumpers", but even they lack the bat-shit tenacity of Trump's base.

What worries me is the voters who say that Biden's just as bad, just as senile, just as tainted with nepotism and corruption, so they're not going to vote.

You put it as if it were completely one-sided. There are equally Democratic party supporters who will do exactly the same for their contender, no matter how flawed he/she is.

[BnM]

worth reading the thread or WAPO article.

[Hugo]

No I'm not.

I'm not conflating anything.

I'm pointing out that a vote withheld will help Trump's re-election. I'm using the fact that Trump wants to disenfranchise as many voters as possible to point to why withholding your vote will help him get re-elected: I'm certainly not mistaking one for the other as you claim.

It's quite obvious conflation. You are misrepresenting someone's decision to abstain from voting as being one and the same as voter suppression when they are two entirely different things. Being denied the right to do something is not the same as choosing not to exercise that right.

I'm not sure what I can say to make it clearer.

[Carter's Choice]

So I see that conservatives are up to their usual tricks in the USA, spreading birther conspiracies to de-legitimize their political opponents and creating roadblocks to make voting harder. If only Seneca was still around, he'd be all over the Harris Birther conspiracy like white on rice. He spent years hysterically promoting Trump's original Obama birther conspiracy.

[notfatcat]

I see democrats are up to their usual tricks - accusing people of rape. Calling their own presidential candidate a racist. Encouraging illegal immigration to ruin black and POC lives. These people are fucking scum supported by utter scum from northern Australia.

[Camroc2]

And all that's a load of bollix.

The minute you start interfering in postal postal ballots, you are effectively taking the Luckashenko road.

Not one I' d personally like to travel.

[Carter's Choice]

I see democrats are up to their usual tricks - accusing people of rape. Calling their own presidential candidate a racist. Encouraging illegal immigration to ruin black and POC lives. These people are fucking scum supported by utter scum from northern Australia.

Well that escalated quickly

[notfatcat]

I see democrats are up to their usual tricks - accusing people of rape. Calling their own presidential candidate a racist. Encouraging illegal immigration to ruin black and POC lives. These people are fucking scum supported by utter scum from northern Australia.

Well that escalated quickly

Of course it did. Scum like you have no idea.

[Fat Old Git]

If you don’t vote then you don’t get to moan about the result. You may not like the choices, but if you leave it up to everyone else and then throw stones, you’re a dick.

(I don’t mean you personally before you get all antsy)

What if you can't vote because your ability to do so has been restricted? By a deliberate reduction of the postal service in your area for example.

[Carter's Choice]

Well I have my first 'foe' on this new forum. At least Seneca would express his anti-progressive views with a hint of eloquence.

[Rinkals]

No matter how bad the Democratic contender there are those who will never vote Republican. And vice verse.

For that reason there will be many Republican abstainers in November. So if Biden can generate some enthusiasm, he should walk it.

Perhaps not.

Trump's base will go through hell and high water to have him re-elected, though.

Obviously, you have the "never trumpers", but even they lack the bat-shit tenacity of Trump's base.

What worries me is the voters who say that Biden's just as bad, just as senile, just as tainted with nepotism and corruption, so they're not going to vote.

You put it as if it were completely one-sided. There are equally Democratic party supporters who will do exactly the same for their contender, no matter how flawed he/she is.

Your perspective is a lot closer than mine, but I see a lot of blue-collar voters voting for Trump. If you contend that the Democrats comprise largely of committed and faithful loyalists, I would have to bow to your superior experience, but that's not what we saw in 2016.

Traditionally, the Democratic Party would be a natural fit for the working class. Socialism isn't really a system designed to sustain the wealthy, after all. And yet, they voted for Trump.

[Zig]

Traditionally, the Democratic Party would be a natural fit for the working class. Socialism isn't really a system designed to sustain the wealthy, after all. And yet, they voted for Trump.

Trump promised to bring dead industries like coal mining back which is a lot more appealing than offering support in retraining for modern viable jobs.

You'd like to think those voters feel cheated by him now.

[Rinkals]

No I'm not.

I'm not conflating anything.

I'm pointing out that a vote withheld will help Trump's re-election. I'm using the fact that Trump wants to disenfranchise as many voters as possible to point to why withholding your vote will help him get re-elected: I'm certainly not mistaking one for the other as you claim.

It's quite obvious conflation. You are misrepresenting someone's decision to abstain from voting as being one and the same as voter suppression when they are two entirely different things. Being denied the right to do something is not the same as choosing not to exercise that right.

I'm not sure what I can say to make it clearer.

You could try talking sense.

I stated my opinion that withholding your vote because you saw nobody better on the list was de facto support for the incumbent. I don't see why that isn't obvious.

Nevertheless, I then backed up that assertion by saying that Trump's campaign against mail-in voting demonstrated this.

Code: Select all

conflate
(kənfleɪt )
Word forms: 3rd person singular present tense conflates , present participle conflating , past tense, past participle conflated
verb
If you conflate two or more descriptions or ideas, or if they conflate, you combine them in order to produce a single one. 

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/conflate

[Fat Old Git]

Well surprise surprise. A new birther conspiracy just in time for the election campaign.

[Fangle]

Perhaps not.

Trump's base will go through hell and high water to have him re-elected, though.

Obviously, you have the "never trumpers", but even they lack the bat-shit tenacity of Trump's base.

What worries me is the voters who say that Biden's just as bad, just as senile, just as tainted with nepotism and corruption, so they're not going to vote.

You put it as if it were completely one-sided. There are equally Democratic party supporters who will do exactly the same for their contender, no matter how flawed he/she is.

Your perspective is a lot closer than mine, but I see a lot of blue-collar voters voting for Trump. If you contend that the Democrats comprise largely of committed and faithful loyalists, I would have to bow to your superior experience, but that's not what we saw in 2016.

Traditionally, the Democratic Party would be a natural fit for the working class. Socialism isn't really a system designed to sustain the wealthy, after all. And yet, they voted for Trump.

Firstly I never said largely. You’re putting words in my mouth. Please don’t infer what isn’t said.
Secondly most union members traditionally vote Democrat - largely blue collar.
Thirdly most blacks also vote democrat no matter what.
And from my observation, and this is purely subjective, most government employees, including teachers etc. vote Democrat.

[Fangle]

I’m sure that mail in votes have never been a large part of the votes cast. A huge majority have gone to the polling booths with mainly the overseas military personnel voting by mail.

I feel that most votes cast will still be at the polls as was done in the primaries. Only now with Covid-19 have mail-in votes become important. I wouldn’t be surprised if each county would be creating drop boxes for mail-in votes thereby bypassing USPS.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

I’m sure that mail in votes have never been a large part of the votes cast. A huge majority have gone to the polling booths with mainly the overseas military personnel voting by mail.

I feel that most votes cast will still be at the polls as was done in the primaries. Only now with Covid-19 have mail-in votes become important. I wouldn’t be surprised if each county would be creating drop boxes for mail-in votes thereby bypassing USPS.

Bar say Ohio where the Secretary of State announced, or at least had announced, there'd be no extra drop in boxes to help with more people voting by post in a state that normally votes in person

The totality of actions to date across the GOP and USPS cannot possibly be a mistake, and can specifically only be an attempt to suppress votes. There's no reason to suppose they'll address their short comings so far, indeed it seems more likely they'll get worse as events progress.

So far as I know there's still no confirmation of how many polling stations will even be open gi, or how many roads/bridges will be accidentally closed in democratic leaning wards to further suppress votes. Perhaps we might only start to get the fuller picture on election day with Trump hoping to declare victory before anyone can say hold on that doesn't seem right

[Fangle]

That is shocking. When did this USPS reorganization start? Only after it was realized that there would be postal votes for all? If so, completely iniquitous.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

The latest reorganisation, appointing Louis DeJoy, came after it was obvious there'd be a huge upsurge in postal voting in this election. But I doubt something the size of the USPS ever stops reorganising.

[Raggs]

Bad lip reading have done one on the trump interview:

The scariest/funniest parts are where you could actually believe it to be real

[Hong Kong]

[Hong Kong]

Deserves to be here as well as the virus thread

[Rinkals]

That is shocking. When did this USPS reorganization start? Only after it was realized that there would be postal votes for all? If so, completely iniquitous.

Entirely to be expected.

I'm pretty sure that Trump will be looking to Lukashenko's landslide re-election for pointers.

[laurent]

With the US traditional allies turning their back on them in the UN assembly on Iran. We have clearly seen the results of 4 years of trump handling international relationships.
The US have isolated themselves and can't rely on the European governments to fall in line anymore.

[Rhubarb & Custard]

Deserves to be here as well as the virus thread

He's on the money, and I don't know if that's his line about the suppressing the virus Vs the vote but it's not the last time we'll hear that spin

[Sinkers]

In the spirit of fairness, credit where credit’s due to Trump and JK on this UAE-Israel deal? Or not a biggie?

[Rhubarb & Custard]

In the spirit of fairness, credit where credit’s due to Trump and JK on this UAE-Israel deal? Or not a biggie?

That probably is to be welcomed, even if not a major thing, unless he promised one or both sides something morally questionable to get the deal over the line

[Raggs]

In the spirit of fairness, credit where credit’s due to Trump and JK on this UAE-Israel deal? Or not a biggie?

Maybe, it's been building for a while now. Sharing intelligence etc, for quite a few years. Still a big step to publicly announce it though.

[Ali Cadoo]

In the spirit of fairness, credit where credit’s due to Trump and JK on this UAE-Israel deal? Or not a biggie?

Maybe, it's been building for a while now. Sharing intelligence etc, for quite a few years. Still a big step to publicly announce it though.

Getting two US allies to sign an agreement is like getting two of your friends to come to your birthday party. Good news? Maybe. Cause for celebration? Perhaps. A small win amongst a dearth of any wins at all? Definitely.

[Ted.]

I’m sure that mail in votes have never been a large part of the votes cast. A huge majority have gone to the polling booths with mainly the overseas military personnel voting by mail.

I feel that most votes cast will still be at the polls as was done in the primaries. Only now with Covid-19 have mail-in votes become important. I wouldn’t be surprised if each county would be creating drop boxes for mail-in votes thereby bypassing USPS.

Pandemic!

[Ted.]

In further relegation of Fauci and Brix,

Coronavirus: Donald Trump hires new doctor with no expertise in infectious diseases

...

Trump last week announced that Dr. Scott Atlas, a frequent guest on Fox News Channel, has joined the White House as a pandemic adviser. Atlas, the former chief of neuroradiology at Stanford University Medical Centre and a fellow at Stanford's conservative Hoover Institution, has no expertise in public health or infectious diseases.

But he has long been a critic of coronavirus lockdowns and has campaigned for kids to return to the classroom and for the return of college sports, just like Trump.

Almost as blatant as ripping out post office mail boxes and de-funding the postal service. While on that, was not de-funding a very very bad thing?

New improved version with added link: https://www.stuff.co.nz/world/americas/ ... s-diseases

[Sinkers]

So what can we expect from the convention this week.

I guess there’s a priority to show that Biden has all his faculties and plenty of energy. And that Harris is all lined up after criticizing him in the primaries. United front from across the party in general I suppose

What else? Do they actually talk policy at these things?

[Hugo]

Was just reading about how USCIS is going to massively hike fees for naturalization - from circa $600 to $1,200. Trump admin says the increases are necessary because USCIS is in financial trouble. The left say it is another example of Trump's anti immigrant stance since such a massive increase will dissuade many people from applying to become citizens.

[mat the expat]

Was just reading about how USCIS is going to massively hike fees for naturalization - from circa $600 to $1,200. Trump admin says the increases are necessary because USCIS is in financial trouble. The left say it is another example of Trump's anti immigrant stance since such a massive increase will dissuade many people from applying to become citizens.

TBF, that's pretty cheap compared to Oz