2020 U.S. Presidential Race

[Zagadka]

I feel like Tulsi never got a fair shot. She's been blacklisted by the DNC since 2016. I am surprised that she went right out and backed Biden, though. He's everything she has said she fought against. I never supported her, but I felt like she never got a chance to have her say.

[Zagadka]

Where the hell is Biden. Trump's approval is getting better despite royally fucking things up, and Biden can't be bothered to show up. It pisses me off that he's the presumptive nominee and isn't showing an ounce of leadership, especially while Bernie is still holding daily events, raising money for the relief, and active in the senate. It is disgraceful.

[Jethro]

Biden was going to make a statement but his house has low ceilings and bad lighting. https://www.zerohedge.com/political/joe-biden-mia-during-national-emergency-apparently-ceilings-his-mansion-too-low-broadcast

 

[GayShayy]

Personally really really want Bernie. We've (the dem party) have been about getting Trump out of office for the entire race, but then what? Bernie has plans, like fully fledged-out plans, and I really want some change rather than some middle-ground man who isn't really proposing plans of substance. The rich own a super high percentage of the wealth leaving everyone else struggling to keep up with inflation with the same/slightly higher minimum-wages. 

[SithLord]

Haven't heard anything from Biden, but maybe that's my biased resources. I follow Bernie on Twitter after all. But it would be a really bad move for him to be quiet during this crisis. 

[AspieAlly613]

3 minutes ago, SithEmpress said:

Haven't heard anything from Biden, but maybe that's my biased resources. I follow Bernie on Twitter after all. But it would be a really bad move for him to be quiet during this crisis. 

Especially presenting as the unity candidate.  Nothing says "not unity" like "I'm not going to talk about this thing that we all care about."

[Knight of Cydonia]

This morning, Biden was accused of sexual assault by a former aide. I wonder if the MSM will cover it? I mean, they spent days highlighting Sanders allegedly saying a woman couldn't be president, and grilled him about it in debates. And this is about alleged sexual assault, soooo....

[Guest]

All of us here should want Trump. Left-wing people allow to many people in that would oppose asexuality (like extreme Muslims, although Ethiopian Muslims are cool). If there were more rich people, that would help all of us (i.e. more good paying jobs). Disclaimer: yes, I am wealthy and the main thing that prevents (more accurately, discourages) me from hiring is leftist policies. Once used to hire poor people and loved watching the day they bought their first luxury car. It gave me such high levels of dopamine. Having to hire a certain number of people of different colors and sexes is stupid. If I see a homeless person willing to work, I do not give a damn what parts are between their legs nor the color of their skin. If anything, the Democrats are keeping people poor. Look at Swedenistan and far-left European countries. The KKK was mostly Democrat and Abraham Lincoln was Republican. Us Republicans just want all of us Americans swimming in cash.

[Skycaptain]

@Synephrine, "Left-wing people allow too many people that would oppose asexuality?"

I'd have to disagree there. If political orientation has any bearing on acceptance of asexuality, which I doubt, then only the extremes on either end have an ideological objection to asexuality. 

Just take this forum. AVEN as a concept is apolitical, but look at the thoughts and ideas presented by the membership, the overall balance is slightly left of centre. 

[iff]

2 hours ago, Synephrine said:

The KKK was mostly Democrat and Abraham Lincoln was Republican

The democrats and republicans of the 1860s are unrecognisable to the parties of today. 

 

[Ella Joy]

5 hours ago, iff said:

The democrats and republicans of the 1860s are unrecognisable to the parties of today. 

 

Adding on to that, the political parties essentially switched names. So Lincoln’s Republican Party resembles today’s Democratic Party, as vice versa with the KKK. 

 

That’s not to say there aren’t fully accepting Republicans, racist Democrats, or any other qualification usually applied to either party. Everything is on both sides. But those historical comparisons can’t really be applied. 

[gisiebob]

19 hours ago, Synephrine said:

Us Republicans just want all of us Americans swimming in cash

that is just called inflation, right? some folk gotta get poorer for other folk to get richer, so who should be losing out from your point of view?

[Zagadka]

21 hours ago, Synephrine said:

 Us Republicans just want all of us Americans swimming in cash.

That is a joke. If they wanted that, they would supporting raising the minimum wage. They want themselves swimming in wealth. They don't give half a shit about anyone who isn't them. They are pleased as punch that the middle class is disappearing and the poorer segments of the population are losing their share of the wealth to the wealthy.

 

As for the parties, parties are overrated. They both kinda suck, and yes, they did switch a lot over the past century, specifically over the south. and the civil rights movement. Anyone who goes on about how Republicans are the party of Lincoln and anti-slavery is either sorely misinformed and/or plain delusional. It is very public knowledge that the parties changed entirely between WWI and Nixon.

 

As for "us", thinking that Trump benefits "us" as asexuals is astounding. He has never given a thought to "us" and if he did, he wouldn't care for us. He has nothing but contempt for LGBTQ+ issues. Trump himself is a sexual predator who bones anything that moves and doesn't think twice about the consequences. I don't see how he has any bearing on "us".

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, Zagadka said:

That is a joke. If they wanted that, they would supporting raising the minimum wage. They want themselves swimming in wealth. They don't give half a shit about anyone who isn't them. They are pleased as punch that the middle class is disappearing and the poorer segments of the population are losing their share of the wealth to the wealthy.

 

As for the parties, parties are overrated. They both kinda suck, and yes, they did switch a lot over the past century, specifically over the south. and the civil rights movement. Anyone who goes on about how Republicans are the party of Lincoln and anti-slavery is either sorely misinformed and/or plain delusional. It is very public knowledge that the parties changed entirely between WWI and Nixon.

 

As for "us", thinking that Trump benefits "us" as asexuals is astounding. He has never given a thought to "us" and if he did, he wouldn't care for us. He has nothing but contempt for LGBTQ+ issues. Trump himself is a sexual predator who bones anything that moves and doesn't think twice about the consequences. I don't see how he has any bearing on "us".

Considering that this is a site about asexuality and that I do not want to lose my cool, I will only say that raising the minimum wage will not help poor people be rich. I am a self-made rich fuck and I helped hobos by luxury vehicles and also be rich fucks like me (do not mis-interpret this as me bragging, I am not the bragging type). That is not how the economy works. Raising the minimum wage increases inflation. Republicans are not into virtuous signaling. Raising the minimum wage may make us look like the good guys, but it will not help the poor. Trust me, I know. As a teenager (long ago when we rode dinosaurs to work), I worked in a unionized sweat shop making less than minimum wage (because of union dues), and ended up having to pick up my own fingers from the concrete floor (thank you Democrats for the help; Igot now assistance, not even finacialy) with zero help from the union. Communism does not work. To many have died under that red flag; more than Nazism (sad to say, I know).

 

 

On the flip side, considering that you young people did not ban me yet, you people are probably pretty cool. But for real though,  learn and understand economics and reality, the current Democrats are not good for this country (Obama is the only Democrat in history ever worth my vote). Trump (despite is personality) is pretty good for this country. The $1K stimulus check would have gone out sooner if Democrats did not block the bill. True, you might claim that the check might "make rich people richer, but many rich people would be spending that to pay your pay check.

[daveb]

When it comes to the economy and recent presidents the facts appear to show the economy doing better under Democrat administrations. It might "appear" to rich people that it does better under Republicans because in that case they are the ones who reap the most benefits (such as tax cuts that benefit them and their corporations more, and give Republicans an "excuse" to cut social programs). Trickle-down simply doesn't work; that has been amply demonstrated in reality. Rich people tend to amass more money, and the wealth gap grows while the middle class shrinks. Aside from the economy, Republicans are not LGBT-friendly, to say the least. Nor are they really about fiscal responsibility, or law and order (at least not among their own ranks), or most of the other things they claim to stand for (for those that have much integrity or backbone left). And they sure are not fighting for many of the things I care about, like social issues, science, equality, taking care of the environment, taking action against climate change, supporting programs like social security, to name a few. I look at their platforms and at the actions and results I see coming from Republicans and come to the firm conclusion that it's not the party for me. Since this is a thread about the 2020 presidential race that means I will certainly not be voting for Trump or his ilk. Other people are free to come to their own conclusions and decide which parties and/or politicians they want to back.

[gisiebob]

13 hours ago, Synephrine said:

Considering that this is a site about asexuality and that I do not want to lose my cool, I will only say that raising the minimum wage will not help poor people be rich. I am a self-made rich fuck and I helped hobos by luxury vehicles and also be rich fucks like me (do not mis-interpret this as me bragging, I am not the bragging type). That is not how the economy works. Raising the minimum wage increases inflation. Republicans are not into virtuous signaling. Raising the minimum wage may make us look like the good guys, but it will not help the poor. Trust me, I know. 

ok, so inflation is if everyone has an extra 50$ then the price of bread jumps 50$ because everyone can afford it, right? vast oversimplification, but that is the way inflation and minimum wage are inextricably linked, right?

 

ok. so, that understanding says the  wealth pie that we are all taking slices out of cannot get bigger so that more people can get an honest slice and not just crumbs, so we have to redistribute wealth like you have, right? I mean, if we take a little out of the very big slices some people have, they shouldn't mind, right? because impoverishing others so you can be wealthy, well that's satisfactory if we just consider individuals who are benefiting, like you and your hobos. but if we take an overall view of society then overall no one is benefiting from this accumulation of wealth, and it is doing active harm as wealth continues to be captured by above average sized slices.

[Zagadka]

Raising the minimum wage does not increase inflation. Inflation has been running rampant, and we haven't raised the minimum wage in decades. Cities that have raised the minimum wage have noted an increase in economic behavior.

 

2 hours ago, daveb said:

When it comes to the economy and recent presidents the facts appear to show the economy doing better under Democrat administrations. It might "appear" to rich people that it does better under Republicans because in that case they are the ones who reap the most benefits (such as tax cuts that benefit them and their corporations more, and give Republicans an "excuse" to cut social programs). Trickle-down simply doesn't work

That is exactly right. One problem with Republican leadership is that deficit spending skyrockets. They cut taxes without increasing revenue and borrow like fuck, then never repay it because they've cut government income. The simple fact that large corporations pay no taxes and "illegal immigrants" still pay a lot of sales taxes is bad enough.

 

It is kinda insane, if you look at the graphs of deficit spending. Republican leadership always increases short term gains at the expense of credit while Democrat leadership always regains the losses balancing a slower economy.

 

 

It is like Republicans screw up the economy, the the resulting Democrats spend years fixing it. Trump is no exception.

 

The worst part is policies like NAFTA that gut US manufacturing and local employment.

[Zagadka]

Trump's approval rating keeps increasing for some ungodly reason, because the "frontrunner" Biden has been producing absolutely nothing. I have no idea why anyone would be inclined to vote for his platform of nothing.

[Ella Joy]

Has anyone else here ever thought the the political party system is messed up and maybe needs some work? 

 

I’m just finding that there’s animosity towards the party names and anyone who even remotely agrees with either one. Maybe a two-party system wasn’t a great idea? 

 

I’m just spitballing, but I’d like to hear some other opinions. 

[daveb]

3 hours ago, Ella Joy said:

Has anyone else here ever thought the the political party system is messed up

Absolutely. Even going back centuries. George Washington himself warned about political parties. The thing is it's something that grows organically out of government/election systems like the US has. Other systems result in multiple parties and the need for coalitions. I don't think there is any way around political parties. Even if you outlawed them (which would be unconstitutional in the US) people would band together in some way and you'd have de facto parties.

[iff]

 

 

Surprised? 

Nope

[Gentle Giant]

I think it’s terrible that the court wouldn’t allow the primary election to be postponed to a later date. Now people have to risk their lives today to vote in Wisconsin. They should allow people to do absentee voting in this situation. I hope by the time the general election comes around things will be safe. But we should be prepared to do ballots by mail just in case it is not. Trump will take advantage of the virus situation to make sure people can’t vote because he thinks it would be in his favor.

[Skycaptain]

Models in Britain are suggesting upto and over 100k C-19 deaths, as the USA has five times the population that could extrapolate to 500k plus deaths, 10000 per week or more. If those numbers actually happen he could reasonably claim to be justified in deferring the election, even more so if polls suggest that he will lose. Its simple, if the polls predict a comfortable win he'll go ahead, if it's close he'll enact legislation to defer the election under state of emergency laws. Even if there's a legal challenge that will take months or more 

[Rockblossom]

42 minutes ago, Skycaptain said:

he'll enact legislation to defer the election under state of emergency laws.

There's no provision in the US Constitution for that.  Even if elections somehow got prevented or delayed for some reason, the terms of the President and VP end at noon on the 20th of January, 2021.  Election or no, the terms of all Representatives and Senators up for reelection would end on the Second of January, 2021.  Since, as it happens, there are quite a few more Republican Senators up for reelection than there are Democrats, there would be a majority of Democrats in what would be left of the Senate.  With no elected Pres or VP, and with no Speaker of the House, the office of President would fall to the President Pro Tempore of the Senate, which would be in the hands of the Democrats.  So the result would be to put a Democrat in the office of President until there was an election.

[Skycaptain]

@Arodash, @Rockblossom, the thing is we're in uncharted territory here. If, in his position as president he was to issue a decree, it would have to be debated in both houses. Also, look at the British position, where the Prime Minister put Parliament into recess early, and has the powers to continue the recess sine die unless the Monarch intervenes. Can Trump invoke a similar situation in the USA, and say that both houses are suspended because of social distancing? 

[Rockblossom]

22 minutes ago, Skycaptain said:

Can Trump invoke a similar situation in the USA, and say that both houses are suspended because of social distancing? 

No.  The USA has a tripartite government:  Executive, Legislative, and Judicial.  None of the three has power over the others.  Some people might think he could us the military to enforce his will, but he can't.  Military officers take an oath to uphold the Constitution and not the will of the President.  If he tries to order the military to do something not constitutional, they will not do it and there's no way he can force them to do so.  The President has a great deal of power, but only so long as he acts within the constraints of the Constitution.

 

Added:  At least structurally, the Prime Minister is equivalent to our Speaker of the House.  Our Speaker does have the power to suspend operations in the House of Representatives, but has no power over the Senate, which (structurally) equates to the House of Lords.  Our Speaker is holding the House in session, and probably will do so until the virus makes it too dangerous to continue.  The Constitution requires that Members of Congress be physically present in the Capital to vote, but there's no reason they couldn't do that via teleconference from their offices, as long as they agree to accept the votes that way.  

[daveb]

33 minutes ago, Rockblossom said:

The Constitution requires that Members of Congress be physically present in the Capital to vote, but there's no reason they couldn't do that via teleconference from their offices, as long as they agree to accept the votes that way.

Here's an interesting article that is relevant to this: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/could-congress-vote-remotely-maybe-will-it-probably-not/

 

Rockblossom is correct, the 3 branches of government in the US Federal system are considered co-equal. There is no legitimate way in which a president could shut down the legislature.

[daveb]

I said legitimate.  

[Still]

• Legitimate
• Signed by Bush

Pick one 😋

[Sally]

1 hour ago, Arodash said:

The NSPD-51 is legitimate  and signed by Bush and since it has never been implemented it has been challenged for its constitutional muster in court. 

 

 

None of that makes sense.