[tc4me]

Tuesday November 3rd who will

President United States 2020? Who do you think it will be? or would you like to avoid this discussion here in the forum?

[Guardian]

I'm voting for Jo Jorgensen, but I think Trump will win. There's so much vote-shaming and voter suppression coming from the left that it might cause people to vote against them because of it.

[Darth-Apple]

Political discussions are always welcome here on MS. As always, we will enforce civil discussions. The topics are extremely heartfelt and of unprecedented importance, but maintaining a civil forum is always absolutely vital to maintaining a constructive exchange of views. We have done a fantastic job (as a community) of maintaining this atmosphere, and we will continue to do so in order to allow these discussions to take place.

I'm voting for Jo Jorgensen, but I think Trump will win. There's so much vote-shaming and voter suppression coming from the left that it might cause people to vote against them because of it.

Yep. If the decision is between two candidates for which there are both grave concerns, it's hard to vote for either. I got quite a lot of heat from both sides for it, but I voted with my conscience. I voted for the candidate that I felt deserved to win. 

The information has been beyond overwhelming. From a purely pragmatic perspective, it's been extremely difficult to try to figure out the "correct" way to vote that takes into account valid concerns across every aisle (all of which of course are critical concerns and affect people's lives). In particular, fact checking has absolutely become a nightmare. It's quite frankly very overwhelming, and it has never been more critical at every single step of the process.

Truthfully, the political situation is extremely worrisome here in the US. In my opinion, we are not likely to be on the map within a decade. It will be an absolutely tragic disaster and hundreds of millions of people will go hungry if we collapse, so I'm hoping that we can put ourselves back together. It will be a very rough few years at the very least.

People are getting shot by the hour, racism has run rampant like never before, and the situation has become chaotic to an extent never before seen in our history. It's basically civil war here in the states.

Quite frankly, I'm terrified.

[s3_gunzel]

I'm voting for Jo Jorgensen, but I think Trump will win.

See, this is what I am afraid of.

On the flip side, and loosely related, Queensland, Australia and New Zealand both have just had elections, and both had a rather sizeable swing against the conservatives/right.

[Thomas]

Joe Biden. There's so much vote shaming and voter suppression coming from the right though. Anyone that tries to claim both Biden and Trump are awful are terribly delusional. The past four years of Trump have been so terribly divisive. We need a president who doesn't stoke the flames of division. I don't know how @Guardian can legitimately claim the left is trying to suppress votes. Republicans are doing literally everything they can to stop mail in voting.

[Darth-Apple]

As a reminder, please keep it civil. I will not allow this thread to devolve into a frenzy of personal attacks, which are neither productive nor conducive to any goal regarding these discussions.

I have personally never understood why they have attacked mail in voting as they have. (I don't have a single Republican friend who agrees that they are fraudulent). We've had mail in voting for decades (at least?) and honestly I've never once heard of it being "a problem" until now.

[tc4me]

Thank you for your factual discussion and that you respect each other, that's why I was thinking, should I start the thread or not. often the users get very personal and attack each other. It's going really well here, THANK YOU


We here, or rather our politicians, only have the economy in our heads and what is most beneficial for them, not for their country, but for their business. What if they don't care, whether tariffs or gasoline prices

[Darth-Apple]

You bring up a very good point. Part of the problem is lobbying. Corporations pave the way for it.

This is an unpopular opinion, but as time has gone by, I've become more convinced. We truly have less "say" (or power) than we think. We have *some* say (of course), but the money is ultimately where the power lies. Those with wealth control the advertising, the marketing, and the campaigns. They therefore influence and control elections and candidates. Statistically, the better funded candidate wins 80% of the time.

And so the result is that following the money almost always leads to the source of the power. And in this case, it's usually not the citizens who have the final word. It's the wealthy, as it always is. (This is not simply a capitalistic problem. Socialist and communist countries have the same problem, except the wealthy are pre-determined and there is very little path for the people of the nation to become wealthy by their own accord.)

It's been the nature of society since the beginning of modern recorded history. There are exceptions, but the general rule hasn't changed; money and power still corrupt. And no matter the type of government, somebody always ends up with the big stick.

[tc4me]

@Darth-Apple ! Right to the point! MONEY (or WEALTH) IS POWER, since man can think, wealth rules no matter in what form, whether gold, silver, oil, coal, and weapons lobby. Everyone and not almost everyone, EVERYONE who is not one of the hyper-rich, is corruptible. One is to survive, the other to get richer from rich. Marionettes or politicians are only recipients of money and are not allowed to have their own opinion! They only do what the Hyper's tell them to do and not what their constituents ask of them and what they have promised.

[Thomas]

. We have *some* say (of course), but the money is ultimately where the power lies. Those with wealth control the advertising, the marketing, and the campaigns. They therefore influence and control elections and candidates. Statistically, the better funded candidate wins 80% of the time.

You can blame Republicans for this. They overturned limits on spending with Citizens United. Money is "speech."

[Guardian]

Joe Biden. There's so much vote shaming and voter suppression coming from the right though. Anyone that tries to claim both Biden and Trump are awful are terribly delusional. The past four years of Trump have been so terribly divisive. We need a president who doesn't stoke the flames of division. I don't know how @Guardian can legitimately claim the left is trying to suppress votes. Republicans are doing literally everything they can to stop mail in voting.

From someone that's neither Republican or Democrat and despises both candidates, fortunately I can see things from an independent perspective. As far as mail-in ballots are concerned, I UNDERSTAND where Republicans are coming from with regards to chain of custody of ballots. Legally, that doesn't fly with anything else, but we're allowing it with voting. That said, they've challenged publicly and in court (and lost). Mail in voting is happening, and they're going to be counted for the most part. Otherwise, the Democratic side is vote-shaming and participating in voter bullying on a level I've never seen before. I'm part of an anti-voter bullying group and the "left" is responsible for about 90% of complaints coming in.

This is an unpopular opinion, but as time has gone by, I've become more convinced. We truly have less "say" (or power) than we think. We have *some* say (of course), but the money is ultimately where the power lies. Those with wealth control the advertising, the marketing, and the campaigns. They therefore influence and control elections and candidates. Statistically, the better funded candidate wins 80% of the time.

I give you ALEC: https://youtu.be/K3yIbxydlHY

[tc4me]

Whether Trump or Biden, that doesn't matter for economic reasons, "in German you say, one blind the other one-eyed, basically the American system cannot be changed. No matter who is president, everyone has raised Obama to heaven, how caring he is is, no wars, etc., and truth, who has he dropped more bombs than all the other presidents so far. Then came Trump, and he dropped more bombs. And what almost no one knows, Obama has the old war junk from the USSR (date since 40 Years passed) from the Russia to America, and "disposed of" yes where did he drop the disposed? .. and Trump exactly like that, and received a lot of money (NATO). Our presidents do everything for money

[tc4me]

it will be an exciting result....

[Darth-Apple]

It's been an extremely strange day here in the US. I can't speak for anyone else but those here in my town, but we've been extremely, extremely divided for years, and 2020 has gone to the point that the two sides won't talk to each other if they're in the same room. If they're on the streets, they kill. It's a brutal world here right now. We aren't the only nation that has struggled with division to this degree, and it really drives the point home that the suffering that humanity endures worldwide is heartbreaking. No human life should be lost to violence, or to sickness, or to poverty, or to racism. And yet the world goes round and humanity never breaks the cycle. Nothing is ever perfect, nor will it ever be.

Today, there was, almost a sense of unity. And it's the first time I've seen that, on the streets, in quite some time. People from both sides were talking to each other and saying "What a horrible year. I hope we get out of this, we will make it. We will survive." And in a world where there hasn't been any semblence of peace here for many months, it was almost erie seeing the unity that I came across. You won't see it on the news.

All of that could end at any moment. Most of us are glued to our phones paying attention to the results of what will be the single most important moment of our lifetimes. Some are more "sure" than others, but unfortunately, nobody quite knows what the result will be. We're eying it very closely, many millions of lives will be affected in an instant.

[SpookyZalost]

and in other news we got the option here for the Napovointerco via a constitutional ammendment.

basically choosing popular vote over the current system so that the next election can be won by the people and not electoral districts.

[Darth-Apple]

and in other news we got the option here for the Napovointerco via a constitutional ammendment.

basically choosing popular vote over the current system so that the next election can be won by the people and not electoral districts.

Seems like it's about time. In times of the past, it tooks weeks for mail, news, and information to go from one part of the country to the other. The states were much more diverse, much more distant, and much less interconnected. It made sense to have the states determine the winner and to have the electoral college to ensure that every state had a gauranteed minimum amount of influence. 

Now, we are much more interconnected. The electoral college just feels more like a game to be won. I could be wrong, I know it does serve the purpose of making sure that all states (including smaller states such as alaska) have a voice. I suppose the electoral college itself is good, but I don't agree with the winner-takes-all system for electoral votes. It should be a mixed allocation system similar to what Maine is doing today.

[SpookyZalost]

Well yes but had we had a national popular vote last election cycle trump would have lost.

he lost the popular vote but got the electoral vote which in my mind was like did my vote just not matter?

with the popular vote every single vote matters.

in other news Joe Biden currently has the lead with 264 electoral votes to Donald Trump's 214.

however the remaining states are very close, practically 50/50 with half percentages siding one way or the other.

with 270 needed to win this is going to be a very close race.

[Darth-Apple]

Yep, well said.

And the popular vote issue, you're right, it's been a lot more contentious lately. Certain states are predictable, some aren't, but in the technology age when everything is shifting, it seems that popular vote is losing more than it's winning. The mixed allocation system that Maine does is good because it splits the electors for the state based on the percentages of each candidate. So ultimately, the votes for the non-leading candidate still matter even if that candidate didn't win the state (because the state's electors are split and even the losing candidate gains electors for the state). Currently only two states do this, so I'm very surprised they aren't doing this more often. That would take care of a lot of the problems we see today with votes not mattering in many key states.

It's still extremely close. It's looking like Trump will lose PA (they're still counting mail in ballots and they have over 500K to go, with Trump only about 200K votes ahead at the moment). If Trump loses PA, Biden can confidently declare victory. But Navada is another one to watch if Trump holds on to PA. They've only counted 75% of the votes and it's extremely tight. It's only a state with 6 electors, but you're absolutely right, if it's a 264/268 election, Nevada could very well (in theory) decide the next president.

But Navada, I truthfully have not the slightest clue what they are doing. They've completely frozen vote counting for some very odd reason. Nobody has the slightest clue why. They just... aren't count them. I'm a little puzzled at this point, I suppose we will just have to wait and hear tomorrow.