2020 US Elections | Biden certified as President | Dems control Congress

Status
Not open for further replies.
I understand that. But taking an academic view and separating them doesn't necessarily mean, a civil war in 2021 will be a completely different scenario compared to what's happening right now. If anything, I would say there would be a lot of similarities in terms of the political rhetoric we are seeing right now surrounding the protests.
Maybe we have different definitions of 'civil war'? To me, that's all-out war. (Even if one side could be deploying guerilla tactics; there don't have to be actual battlefields.)

That's not what's happening now. You could argue that the right is already fighting back in the form of police brutality and that new federal police, but the riots and police brutality quickly decreased after a turbulent start, and it remains to be seen what will really happen with that federal police (which is as yet very small and big very effective). Given that the violence trend in current protests is thus actually downwards and some stuff has been achieved (public opinion has shifted, a lot of municipalities have changed police protocols, etc. - there had even been lame executive order), I don't see this becoming a civil war.

You're right that, if Trump is reelected and a similar incident and ensuing dynamic happen, the protests might be more violent and right-wing language might be more incendiary. But public opinion will have shifted even further and cities will have improved protocols and policies, softening things somewhat. I still don't see that exploding into an actual civil war, just a repeat of moves, leading to further incremental change. That's the history of the west since WWII and I don't see that going differently in the US now. (But I don't live there, I should add.)

But anyway (to get back on topic), say things do spiral out of control into a civil war or another kind of (relatively) violent conflict: what's to guarantee that progressives will come out on top? And if they do, what's to guarantee that they will significantly change the system instead of just assuming the presidency and continuing as before? Alternatively, if things do not spiral out of control and remain peaceful protests (if tense and occasionally violent), that will result in incremental change at best, then how's that worth reselecting Trump?
 
Last edited:

Meanwhile Florida is doing direct absentee mailers without an application requirement - which is exactly what Trump railed against in the Axios interview. I'm sure the RNC called him up and said that he can't pick on Florida bc that's their entire game plan. To get everyone s dog to vote. Ahh the hypocrisy knows no bounds does it.
 
Meanwhile Florida is doing direct absentee mailers without an application requirement - which is exactly what Trump railed against in the Axios interview. I'm sure the RNC called him up and said that he can't pick on Florida bc that's their entire game plan. To get everyone s dog to vote. Ahh the hypocrisy knows no bounds does it.

I had my first doubt about Biden winning earlier this week, and it's growing a little now. Just some little things right now, but his is a high risk strategy.
 
Would be some awesome for Bernie to run as a third-party candidate, win somewhere between 4 and 8%, and ensure another Trump presidency, which among other things, will lock the Supreme Court for many decades (with at least 6 judges, probably 7). That would totally help the progressives after all, they will have even more to moan in Twitter for the next four years.

Which is all that matters for them.
Out of interest, in the American system can the president win via forming a coalition of sort. Say Bernie wins X sets, and Democrates win Y, but X + Y is enough to win. Or is it basically whichever individual party wins the most seats gets the job?
 
Out of interest, in the American system can the president win via forming a coalition of sort. Say Bernie wins X sets, and Democrates win Y, but X + Y is enough to win. Or is it basically whichever individual party wins the most seats gets the job?

You are mixing two systems. In the American system you vote directly for the president, which is a distinct and separate vote from the vote for your area House Senate or House of Representatives official. Whereas in the UK you vote for your constituent MP who has a seat in Parliament and the leader of the party with the most seats becomes the Prime Minister. So to answer your question no you can’t.
 
You are mixing two systems. In the American system you vote directly for the president, which is a distinct and separate vote from the vote for your area House Senate or House of Representatives official. Whereas in the UK you vote for your constituent MP who has a seat in Parliament and the leader of the party with the most seats becomes the Prime Minister. So to answer your question no you can’t.
Ah right, thanks for that.
 
You are mixing two systems. In the American system you vote directly for the president, which is a distinct and separate vote from the vote for your area House Senate or House of Representatives official. Whereas in the UK you vote for your constituent MP who has a seat in Parliament and the leader of the party with the most seats becomes the Prime Minister. So to answer your question no you can’t.

Your answer is ultimately correct, but you didn't really answer what he was asking. I think he was asking whether two candidates could pool their votes (or Electors) to defeat the plurality winner, unrelated to Congress. There have been instances of Electors not voting for who they were supposed to, but I believe states are taking measures to stop that from happening, so it's not really possible.
 
Your answer is ultimately correct, but you didn't really answer what he was asking. I think he was asking whether two candidates could pool their votes (or Electors) to defeat the plurality winner, unrelated to Congress. There have been instances of Electors not voting for who they were supposed to, but I believe states are taking measures to stop that from happening, so it's not really possible.

Yeah but this is just getting tied up in semantics. What you’re effectively talking about is either a) someone pulling out and directing their base to vote for person x. Or b) where someone gets votes in the election and then the states they won being directed instead to vote for person x. Neither of these are really following A coalition. More an agreement. And the latter in particular unlikely to happen in a large scale.

The question was Referring to what is effectively a coalition government. Which only happens if one party does not get enough votes. Hence two agree to form a coalition to make a majority.

That can’t happen in the US system as (correct me if Wrong) there is no minimum benchmark to victory. It’s whoever gets the most electoral college votes.
 
Out of interest, in the American system can the president win via forming a coalition of sort. Say Bernie wins X sets, and Democrates win Y, but X + Y is enough to win. Or is it basically whichever individual party wins the most seats gets the job?
No coalitions. People vote for delegates who vote for the president (most of them are bounded and cannot decide how to vote). If no candidate gets 271 electoral votes, then the decision goes to the House of Representatives but the catch is that there is only one vote from each state. As of right now, that means that Republicans control 26 states, so if the decision goes there (for example Trump not winning enough electoral votes but Bernie spoiling Biden’s chances) then GOP would still elect Trump.

The reason why no one is trying third party runs is because it is a terrible idea to progress your agenda. Not because Bernie is spineless or the other bullshit mentioned here.
 
Yeah but this is just getting tied up in semantics. What you’re effectively talking about is either a) someone pulling out and directing their base to vote for person x. Or b) where someone gets votes in the election and then the states they won being directed instead to vote for person x. Neither of these are really following A coalition. More an agreement. And the latter in particular unlikely to happen in a large scale.

The question was Referring to what is effectively a coalition government. Which only happens if one party does not get enough votes. Hence two agree to form a coalition to make a majority.

That can’t happen in the US system as (correct me if Wrong) there is no minimum benchmark to victory. It’s whoever gets the most electoral college votes.

This is true for deciding who wins the state's electors (in most states), but it's not true for deciding who becomes president. If nobody gets 270 electors, the House votes on a state-by-state basis, with each state having 1 vote, until one of the candidates gets a majority.
 
No coalitions. People vote for delegates who vote for the president (most of them are bounded and cannot decide how to vote). If no candidate gets 271 electoral votes, then the decision goes to the House of Representatives but the catch is that there is only one vote from each state. As of right now, that means that Republicans control 26 states, so if the decision goes there (for example Trump not winning enough electoral votes but Bernie spoiling Biden’s chances) then GOP would still elect Trump.

The reason why no one is trying third party runs is because it is a terrible idea to progress your agenda. Not because Bernie is spineless or the other bullshit mentioned here.
About those delegates: do all delegates necessarily go to a single winning candidate in each state, or can they be split between candidates? (E.g., four candidates get 25% of the votes each, so the state's delegates are split four ways.) I think it's rather that the candidate with the most votes gets all the delegates regardless of the percentage, but thought I'd ask.
 
About those delegates: do all delegates necessarily go to a single winning candidate in each state, or can they be split between candidates? (E.g., four candidates get 25% of the votes each, so the state's delegates are split four ways.) I think it's rather that the candidate with the most votes gets all the delegates regardless of the percentage, but thought I'd ask.
Winner takes all in all states except Maine I believe.
 
This is true for deciding who wins the state's electors (in most states), but it's not true for deciding who becomes president. If nobody gets 270 electors, the House votes on a state-by-state basis, with each state having 1 vote, until one of the candidates gets a majority.

That’s interesting. I didn’t know that. And I guess it hasn’t ever been an issue due to the 2-party dominance meaning it is inherent to reach 270. That would make it very complicated if the US had the same system but another main stream party came forward.
 
About those delegates: do all delegates necessarily go to a single winning candidate in each state, or can they be split between candidates? (E.g., four candidates get 25% of the votes each, so the state's delegates are split four ways.) I think it's rather that the candidate with the most votes gets all the delegates regardless of the percentage, but thought I'd ask.

Nebraska and Maine technically all split electoral votes but it rarely happens.
 
WAIT, WHAT??? Joe Biden Just Said That Prosecuting Trump is "Probably Not Very Good For Democracy."

 
That’s interesting. I didn’t know that. And I guess it hasn’t ever been an issue due to the 2-party dominance meaning it is inherent to reach 270. That would make it very complicated if the US had the same system but another main stream party came forward.
I guess at that point they could work on coalitions. Like, if a centrist candidate had 250 delegates and a leftist candidate another 30, the leftist could negotiate for influence to get their delegates to vote for the centrist. That's assuming they can influence delegates once they have already been assigned by their states; otherwise I can guess such negotiations could happen pre-election, once it's clear the leftist might win some states?

Thanks for the responses on delegate splitting btw, @Revan, @onenilagainstthearsenal
 
WAIT, WHAT??? Joe Biden Just Said That Prosecuting Trump is "Probably Not Very Good For Democracy."



Of course. I can't believe some people actually thought Biden would go after Trump if he wins.
 
Last edited:
WAIT, WHAT??? Joe Biden Just Said That Prosecuting Trump is "Probably Not Very Good For Democracy."



Biden's opinion is irrelevant here. It's the AG's opinion and those of the DOJ prosecutors that count. There's a good chance that Biden may never see his AG once they are in the job, just as Obama went to extraordinary lengths to avoid being in the same room alone with his AGs.
 
Biden's opinion is irrelevant here. It's the AG's opinion and those of the DOJ prosecutors that count. There's a good chance that Biden may never see his AG once they are in the job, just as Obama went to extraordinary lengths to avoid being in the same room alone with his AGs.

And Biden appoints the AG. We will see if Biden actually appoints people that are willing to go after Trump. Based on historical precedent (Nixon-Ford, Reagan-Bush, Bush-Obama) I see it as highly unlikely. There has not been any indication that Trump is going to get prosecuted by a Biden administration. If it happens, it will be because of the state-level units like SDNY.
 
And Biden appoints the AG. We will see if Biden actually appoints people that are willing to go after Trump. Based on historical precedent (Nixon-Ford, Reagan-Bush, Bush-Obama) I see it as highly unlikely. There has not been any indication that Trump is going to get prosecuted by a Biden administration. If it happens, it will be because of the state-level units like SDNY.

Biden appoints the AG to be Attorney General, not his personal Roy Cohn as Trump has done with Barr. If the AG discovers crimes, s/he has to by statute prosecute them. Biden has no say in this process. Trump is by my count on the hook in three different jurisdictions when he leave offices - NY State, Manhattan DA, and the incoming DOJ - which is why he is so desperate to stay in office where he can continue to use the Presidency to shield him from further prosecution.
 
Last edited:
Biden appoints the AG to be Attorney General, not his personal Roy Cohn as Trump has done with Barr. If the AG discovers crimes, s/he has to by statute prosecute them. Biden has no say in this process. Trump is by my count on the hook in three different jurisdictions when he leave offices - NY State, Manhattan DA, and the incoming DOJ - which is why he is so desperate to stay in office where he can continue to use the Presidency to shield him from further prosecution.

it's extremely naive to believe Biden will no say whatsoever and this won't be something discussed ahead of time. Again, history already provides a precedent that it won't happen as the three stark examples I provided indicate.
Trump will possibly face prosecution from NY State and Manhattan but there is little to no chance he will from an incoming DoJ. Wishful thinking for you to believe its such a certainty against all indications.
 
it's extremely naive to believe Biden will no say whatsoever and this won't be something discussed ahead of time. Again, history already provides a precedent that it won't happen as the three stark examples I provided indicate.

History's precedents don't apply in the present since we've never had anyone remotely as corrupt or damaging to the country's institutions as Trump has been. Still, Biden will have no say in how any of this goes and he was right to brush off the question in the interview since suggesting he would like to prosecute Trump would be completely inappropriate given he isn't supposed to have any say in how any of that goes down.
 
History's precedents don't apply in the present since we've never had anyone remotely as corrupt or damaging to the country's institutions as Trump has been.

That's just hyperbole that isn't really true when you actually examine what Reagan did in Iran-Contra and subsequent actions - like eliminating the Fairness Doctrine which paved the way for Limbaugh, talk radio and the rise of Trump. Nixon was also quite corrupt himself. Bush v Gore set a huge precedent in not counting votes let alone what Bush did to push the Iraq war on false pretenses.

So yeah, I do think the precedents apply and that Biden Admin will not prosecute Trump. It's really odd that you are so convinced it's going to happen. We'll see in a few years.

Still, Biden will have no say in how any of this goes and he was right to brush off the question in the interview since suggesting he would like to prosecute Trump would be completely inappropriate given he isn't supposed to have any say in how any of that goes down.

He appoints the AG dude. That literally is having a massive say. Just like how Obama/Biden could have appointed someone more willing to look into Wall Street crimes than Holder, Biden will likely appoint someone he knows simply won't go looking to prosecute Trump because he wants to "heal the country".
 
History's precedents don't apply in the present since we've never had anyone remotely as corrupt or damaging to the country's institutions as Trump has been. Still, Biden will have no say in how any of this goes and he was right to brush off the question in the interview since suggesting he would like to prosecute Trump would be completely inappropriate given he isn't supposed to have any say in how any of that goes down.
And Donny isn’t one of ‘them’, neither the political elite nor the moneyed power-brokers of Wall Street; once he is no longer useful and perhaps toxic they will drop him like a hot potato.
 
History's precedents don't apply in the present since we've never had anyone remotely as corrupt or damaging to the country's institutions as Trump has been. Still, Biden will have no say in how any of this goes and he was right to brush off the question in the interview since suggesting he would like to prosecute Trump would be completely inappropriate given he isn't supposed to have any say in how any of that goes down.
You're right on all that, but the DNC might also fear GOP retaliation if they do go after Trump. Technically, of course, Biden will have to distance himself from any of it, and he might do things properly and not get involved at all. But that's not how the GOP will spin it and people would believe that narrative, given that the DOJ is currently completely politicized. There is nothing much gained politically from prosecuting Trump on the federal level (especially with those other things going on), so Biden might have a lot of internal pressure to make sure his DOJ stays away, just to make sure a non-scrupulous GOP president won't go after DNC people in the future. (Just like the DNC now probably regrets ever having gone nuclear on the filibuster, seeing how the GOP has run with that.)
 
That's just hyperbole that isn't really true when you actually examine what Reagan did in Iran-Contra and subsequent actions - like eliminating the Fairness Doctrine which paved the way for Limbaugh, talk radio and the rise of Trump. Nixon was also quite corrupt himself. Bush v Gore set a huge precedent in not counting votes let alone what Bush did to push the Iraq war on false pretenses.

So yeah, I do think the precedents apply and that Biden Admin will not prosecute Trump. It's really odd that you are so convinced it's going to happen. We'll see in a few years.



He appoints the AG dude. That literally is having a massive say. Just like how Obama/Biden could have appointed someone more willing to look into Wall Street crimes than Holder, Biden will likely appoint someone he knows simply won't go looking to prosecute Trump because he wants to "heal the country".

He obviously appoints the AG, but he has no say in things the AG will do once in office. That's how it works.

Biden has to use unifying language now and once in office because that is part of the job. He can't however influence the facts surrounding Trump engaging in criminal conduct. If such facts exist, then DOJ are legally mandated to investigate and prosecute.
 
And Donny isn’t one of ‘them’, neither the political elite nor the moneyed power-brokers of Wall Street; once he is no longer useful and perhaps toxic they will drop him like a hot potato.
I can see him being significantly influential with his online presence. I have no doubt in my mind that the Democrats/DOJ won't do anything to him, but Trump will act like he was being pursued.
 
You're right on all that, but the DNC might also fear GOP retaliation if they do go after Trump. Technically, of course, Biden will have to distance himself from any of it, and he might do things properly and not get involved at all. But that's not how the GOP will spin it and people would believe that narrative, given that the DOJ is currently completely politicized. There is nothing much gained politically from prosecuting Trump on the federal level (especially with those other things going on), so Biden might have a lot of internal pressure to make sure his DOJ stays away, just to make sure a non-scrupulous GOP president won't go after DNC people in the future. (Just like the DNC now probably regrets ever having gone nuclear on the filibuster, seeing how the GOP has run with that.)

If at this stage Biden (or whoever the DNC candidate) still worries about decorum and politic etiquette they won't win.

They go low we go high is the very reason Hillary lost.

He should be better than that "I do not know, but if it turns out he's doing a crime we will let our court deals with it" or something along that line.

Doesn't matter if you actually pursue that or not when you win.
 
If at this stage Biden (or whoever the DNC candidate) still worries about decorum and politic etiquette they won't win.

They go low we go high is the very reason Hillary lost.

He should be better than that "I do not know, but if it turns out he's doing a crime we will let our court deals with it" or something along that line.

Doesn't matter if you actually pursue that or not when you win.
Nah that ain't it. She's a low blow kind of person and even did it in the last election with the deplorable comment. She lost because she, to academically put it, fecking sucks shit.
 
If at this stage Biden (or whoever the DNC candidate) still worries about decorum and politic etiquette they won't win.

They go low we go high is the very reason Hillary lost.

He should be better than that "I do not know, but if it turns out he's doing a crime we will let our court deals with it" or something along that line.

Doesn't matter if you actually pursue that or not when you win.
There's a difference between campaign rhetoric and actual actions once in office though. Even Trump did not actually pursue Hillary.
 
He's doing significantly better than Hillary was 4 years ago.

Also, he appears to have enough states in the bag to win the Presidency now - and that's not including GA, FL, AZ and NC which are still listed as toss ups.


So I should absolutely no guilt (I never was going to) and catch no shame from others in voting third party. :angel:
 
Nah that ain't it. She's a low blow kind of person and even did it in the last election with the deplorable comment. She lost because she, to academically put it, fecking sucks shit.

TBF nobody was expecting a thug like Trump who just go out there and grab them by the pussy

Once bitten twice shy and all that. If they let him win twice then the shame's on the DNC

EDIT: For what it's worth, Trump lost due to corona, if corona didn't happen chances are he's going to walk the 2020. If Biden win, it's because trump lose.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.