Jump to content
270soft Forum

Trump suggests delaying 2020 Presidential Election


Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Reagan04 said:

I won’t relax when Liberty is threatened even when the President is of my party, I’ll fight like hell to preserve it and so should you.

I do. Liberty is indeed being threatened, but this talk of "Trump is trampling on the Constitution and threatening liberty" is I think at best hyperbolic. Is he a Constitutional Conservative? Nope. He's done some things I disagree with. I don't like this Space Force idea, I think $1T infrastructure projects are a mistake and yes many Presidents for 100 years have been encroaching on Congressional power. Let's just posthumously impeach every POTUS since Teddy Roosevelt, since if you don't like one of them, you can always find SOMETHING. I could be off on this, but I suspect there's more than meets the eye to your hatred of the President. Because one can literally make any of those 44 men look like the best ever or the worst ever or anything in between if one looks and cherry picks hard enough. As for his style, well we've tried doing things the "nice" way. Straight arrow Romney, war hero McCain, and Mr. "compassionate conservative" himself, G.W. Bush. His dad's "thousand points of light." We've had a string of choirboys seeking and inhabiting the Presidency, and what has that gotten us? Endless wars, crippling debt, two humiliatingly ineffectual presidential campaigns, and not once was the leftist agenda seriously pushed back on. I was very slow coming around to Trump, but in the end I realized that our choice is very clear in 2020: "Trump populism" vs. "United States of Venezuela." That's the option. Ron Paul, Ted Cruz are not on the ballot, and Ronald Reagan is deceased and restricted by the 22nd Amendment. That's why I put out my "if you could hand pick" poll. But this is the choice we have at the moment. I'm firmly convinced that the worst-case scenario for Trump is still better than the best case scenario under Biden. I think it's foolish to think this is "Good Old Uncle Joe" from 40 years ago. The man is non compos mentis and was an empty suit even during his good days. Now he's a doddering old man who will be an empty vessel for every far-left nut in the Democrat Party to fill. He's already put out a joint economic plan with Bernie Sanders. If you don't like Bill Barr as AG, are you going to like Keith Ellison any better? Elizabeth Warren as Treasury Secretary? AOC in charge of energy policy? I personally think voting for Sanders out of spite for Trump is a reckless and unnecessary gamble. You're making what you think is the pragmatic choice, and I'm making mine. I agree that Trump certainly has his faults, I just don't have the "sky is falling" attitude that you have. Much as you hate him, Trump is the symptom, not the disease. If the GOP had stood up for itself and stood by its principles during the previous 28 years, we wouldn't be in this situation. We've TRIED things the "Presidential" way and it hasn't worked.

You and I, if we laid out our criticisms of the President, might actually find a lot of common ground. The problem is though that I find myself having to defend him from outrageous accusations that we can't even get to the common points of criticism. I've explained this over and over. I don't own a MAGA hat, nor do I own a "Trump = Hitler" shirt. I'm a small-l libertarian who's registered independent. I simply try to take a step back and evaluate things as fairly and objectively as I possibly can. We all have our biases. You and I, I suspect, are probably very much alike ideologically. I hold no issues with you not liking the President, in fact despite some angry outbursts I don't consider you a "RINO" or anything because of it. I probably would have voted against diverting emergency funds to the wall too. But I try to be as fair and objective and non-partisan as I can. As I've said, it's a clear choice. We both agree that it's a "lesser of two evils" election. I wish it were different. I wish we had multiple parties, ranked choice voting and that Congress would take back its power from the Executive, Judicial branches as well as the bureaucracy. I'm a Jeffersonian at heart, where the Federal government should do foreign policy, national defense and little else, and that applies to ALL branches, not just the Presidency. But the reality is, that's no where near the Overton window right now. The last Republican to campaign for austerity and constitutional conservatism was Barry Goldwater and look what happened. So... the way I look at it, we can accept the reality, imperfect as it is, or roll the dice and give the nuclear football to a man who barely knows what day it is. I'm not willing to take that risk.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 92
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Some people say Trump is an authoritarian for: firing Attorneys that are investigating him or his allies, tried banning travel based on religion,  demanding loyalty from his party, using unmarked agen

You act as though Trump has been just as bad if not worse by governing with a pen and a phone. I mean the man literally attempted to move the budgetary power of appropriation from Congress to the Pres

Good thing he didn't appoint over 200 federal judges(some of whom are not qualified), or has an entire right wing news network where he calls in all the time on. Good thing because, I was honestly wor

32 minutes ago, servo75 said:

I was very slow coming around to Trump, but in the end I realized that our choice is very clear in 2020: "Trump populism" vs. "United States of Venezuela." That's the option. Ron Paul, Ted Cruz are not on the ballot, and Ronald Reagan is deceased and restricted by the 22nd Amendment.

Absolutely true. As Former Senator of Nevada Dean Heller put it: "the choice is between crazy and socialism and I'm going with crazy."

34 minutes ago, servo75 said:

If you don't like Bill Barr as AG, are you going to like Keith Ellison any better? Elizabeth Warren as Treasury Secretary? AOC in charge of energy policy?

Once again you perfectly summarize here, what my motivation is for backing Trump.

36 minutes ago, servo75 said:

it's a "lesser of two evils" election. I wish it were different.

It is and sadly many elections in the recent past have become such an election (2016, the Austrian presidential election run-off and so on).

Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

It is and sadly many elections in the recent past have become such an election (2016, the Austrian presidential election run-off and so on).

For some reason, you still go on about Presidential Elections in Austria as though they actually selected a meaningful and empowered executive head, like American Presidential Elections do, and not just a "mascot-in-chief," for the most part, and seem to downplay the all-important nature that Nationalrat elections actually have in Austrian politics. I'm not quite sure I can get my head around this focus on things you have, politically, in your home country.

Link to post
Share on other sites

@servo75 I'm not sure where your list of cabinet members is coming from.  Joe Biden won the nomination, not Bernie Sanders.

Bernie is not on Biden's transition team coming up with the list of nominees to choose from.

And Bernie does not control the approval process, which is up to the Senate.  Currently run by Republicans.  Might be run by Democrats if we're lucky when the time comes, but even so, it won't be progressive Senators as they're just aren't enough running to take control.

This is extremism with no facts to back it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Patine said:

For some reason, you still go on about Presidential Elections in Austria as though they actually selected a meaningful and empowered executive head, like American Presidential Elections do, and not just a "mascot-in-chief," for the most part, and seem to downplay the all-important nature that Nationalrat elections actually have in Austrian politics. I'm not quite sure I can get my head around this focus on things you have, politically, in your home country.

I am actually not that interested in Austrian presidential elections compared to legislative elections. However, no legislative election was annulled so far here, so why should I raise the issue here? The whole election process is completely different and probably not known anywhere outside Austria. That makes it difficult for me to use these elections for showing any similarities as well... 

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

@servo75 I'm not sure where your list of cabinet members is coming from.  Joe Biden won the nomination, not Bernie Sanders.

Bernie is not on Biden's transition team coming up with the list of nominees to choose from.

And Bernie does not control the approval process, which is up to the Senate.  Currently run by Republicans.  Might be run by Democrats if we're lucky when the time comes, but even so, it won't be progressive Senators as they're just aren't enough running to take control.

This is extremism with no facts to back it.

I guess this comes from the already known notion to appease the progressive wing of the party, while ignoring the interests of most hard-working Americans who do care about kitchen table issues instead of AOC's agenda. If Biden doesn't appoint the right people, AOC is going to challenge Schumer and so on. Democrats can't afford this struggle. Biden's campaign completely lacks base support. Remember the Democratic New Hampshire primary. 8% in the Granite State... That's the campaign's ''support''. The rest is borrowed from Bernie Bros, Never-Trumpers and other groups. If Biden takes office the Never-Trumpers will immediately turn their backs on the new president and start their efforts to bring him down again. The political climate will certainly not cool down.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

I guess this comes from the already known notion to appease the progressive wing of the party, while ignoring the interests of most hard-working Americans who do care about kitchen table issues instead of AOC's agenda. If Biden doesn't appoint the right people, AOC is going to challenge Schumer and so on. Democrats can't afford this struggle. Biden's campaign completely lacks base support. Remember the Democratic New Hampshire primary. 8% in the Granite State... That's the campaign's ''support''. The rest is borrowed from Bernie Bros, Never-Trumpers and other groups. If Biden takes office the Never-Trumpers will immediately turn their backs on the new president and start their efforts to bring him down again. The political climate will certainly not cool down.

You think Biden won the nomination decisively while completely lacking base support?
 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Actinguy said:

You think Biden won the nomination decisively while completely lacking base support?
 

Yes, I do. All the other major candidates suspended their campaigns right before Super Tuesday or shortly afterwards and endorsed him, just because he won South Carolina and Bloomberg was destroyed in debates he shouldn't even have attended. Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Bloomberg for example all took the path of endorsing Biden. Even Harris endorsed him around Super Tuesday. After the bad New Hampshire results, there were talks Biden would suspend his campaign, so I would not argue the Democratic electorate backed him unanimously. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

He won almost 50% of South Carolina.  Bernie got less than 20%.  Warren got 7.  And this was with Buttigieg still in the race, too.  

Yeah I noted that in my response. The matter of the fact is Biden solely relied on SC and his support from the black community there, which he took for granted. If you don't vote for him you ain't black someone said.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Conservative Elector 2 said:

Yes, I do. All the other major candidates suspended their campaigns right before Super Tuesday or shortly afterwards and endorsed him, just because he won South Carolina and Bloomberg was destroyed in debates he shouldn't even have attended. Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Bloomberg for example all took the path of endorsing Biden. Even Harris endorsed him around Super Tuesday. After the bad New Hampshire results, there were talks Biden would suspend his campaign, so I would not argue the Democratic electorate backed him unanimously. 

Why would everyone suddenly drop out if they didn't think he had the base's support? Keep in mind, Buttigieg and the rest all dropped out before COVID was an issue so that's not it.    Only Bernie and baaaarely Warren were still in the race by that point.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

Yes, I do. All the other major candidates suspended their campaigns right before Super Tuesday or shortly afterwards and endorsed him, just because he won South Carolina and Bloomberg was destroyed in debates he shouldn't even have attended. Buttigieg, Klobuchar, Bloomberg for example all took the path of endorsing Biden. Even Harris endorsed him around Super Tuesday. After the bad New Hampshire results, there were talks Biden would suspend his campaign, so I would not argue the Democratic electorate backed him unanimously. 

I didn't say unanimously.  They're not supposed to -- that's the whole point of the primary.  To find out who has the broadest support.  Biden won.  

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Actinguy said:

Why would everyone suddenly drop out if they didn't think he had the base's support? Keep in mind, Buttigieg and the rest all dropped out before COVID was an issue so that's not it.    Only Bernie and baaaarely Warren were still in the race by that point.  

I'd argue because they feared splitting the moderate/centrist vote in favor of Bernie. Many Bernie Bros blame Warren for not dropping out earlier. After South Carolina and when it became obvious Bloomberg damaged himself unnecessarily, Biden became the sole choice to hinder Bernie getting the nomination. Once again we are at the point of borrowed support because of outside interests, not base support. Never-Sanders this time.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

I didn't say unanimously.  They're not supposed to -- that's the whole point of the primary.  To find out who has the broadest support.  Biden won.  

Well, I didn't say you said this. Unanimously is just a rhetorical figure here for having a large following. Nevertheless I am still not convinced Biden actually has this kind of support as argued beforehand. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

I'd argue because they feared splitting the moderate/centrist vote in favor of Bernie. Many Bernie Bros blame Warren for not dropping out earlier. After South Carolina and when it became obvious Bloomberg damaged himself unnecessarily, Biden became the sole choice to hinder Bernie getting the nomination. Once again we are at the point of borrowed support because of outside interests, not base support. Never-Sanders this time.

Sure, there's truth there -- but again, even before dropping out, he was at 50%.  And left to his own to defeat Bernie, he pulled it off -- proving that his support was greater.

Progressives may become dominant in a generation or two, I don't doubt it.  But to vote for Trump because of something you think progressives are in power now makes absolutely no sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

Sure, there's truth there -- but again, even before dropping out, he was at 50%.  And left to his own to defeat Bernie, he pulled it off -- proving that his support was greater.

Progressives may become dominant in a generation or two, I don't doubt it.  But to vote for Trump because of something you think progressives are in power now makes absolutely no sense.

In turn I wouldn't say they are in power now, but their power certainly grows. Many people (here on the forum) say Biden will turn away progressives by picking Harris as running mate. Imagine, Kamala Harris is not known to be very conservative, I wouldn't vote for her unless the alternative is even worse and picking her still could be a problem with certain people in their own party. Progressives will make demands from Biden for their backing, that's for sure. There demands were not a factor when Gore chose Lieberman or when Kerry chose Edwards, not even at the time when Obama chose Biden. Their influence will become greater because it's already existing. I mean in former times left-wing people voted for Ralph Nader or Jill Stein when they didn't like the Democratic nominee. Now they have their agents within the party itself. By achieving this they are not a mitigated fringe group anymore. Seriously, who cared about a Jill Stein supporter's opinion when making important decisions like picking the nominee for Vice President? Now, to appease the far-left the nomination for the Dem VP is a battleground already.

Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

I am actually not that interested in Austrian presidential elections compared to legislative elections. However, no legislative election was annulled so far here, so why should I raise the issue here? The whole election process is completely different and probably not known anywhere outside Austria. That makes it difficult for me to use these elections for showing any similarities as well... 

Wasn't the 1934 legislative election in Austrian EFFECTIVELY annulled? :P

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Patine said:

Wasn't the 1934 legislative election in Austrian EFFECTIVELY annulled? :P

Hahah I didn't know it myself, but my search revealed the last election was in fact already in 1930.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/3/2020 at 2:38 PM, Conservative Elector 2 said:

Yeah, like wishing someone ''well'' for no apparent reason. He could have said ''I don't care about this person, but I hope she'll get a just punishment." It's as simple as that...

Another good one: instead of blaming Pelosi for criticizing Dr. Birx (which is highly irresponsible amidst an ongoing pandemic), Trump insults Dr. Birx as well... as a strategist one must go crazy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/3/2020 at 7:40 PM, servo75 said:

So... the way I look at it, we can accept the reality, imperfect as it is, or roll the dice and give the nuclear football to a man who barely knows what day it is. I'm not willing to take that risk.

So what, you're going to trust it with a man who's actively provoking a war with China!?

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Wiw said:

So what, you're going to trust it with a man who's actively provoking a war with China!?

I see @servo75, like you and a few other people here, believe the old urban legend of the "nuclear football," the "nuclear codes," or the "button," - that old myth that U.S. President can actually launch nuclear missiles of their own singular authority and decision, without any need for advise, clearance, failsafes, a formal release, and a long chain of protocols. The "nuclear football," is, of course, as us rational people know, Hollywood stuff. Let's be real! The only leader of an even half-assed nuclear power who has that singular, arbitrary discretion of launch in the world today is Kim Jong-un...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Look, I'm sure he was being speaking figuratively when he said that. Now, let's go the other way, shall we?

So, you're going to trust the security of the world with a man who's actively provoking a war with China?

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/3/2020 at 10:52 PM, Conservative Elector 2 said:

In turn I wouldn't say they are in power now, but their power certainly grows. Many people (here on the forum) say Biden will turn away progressives by picking Harris as running mate. Imagine, Kamala Harris is not known to be very conservative, I wouldn't vote for her unless the alternative is even worse and picking her still could be a problem with certain people in their own party. Progressives will make demands from Biden for their backing, that's for sure. There demands were not a factor when Gore chose Lieberman or when Kerry chose Edwards, not even at the time when Obama chose Biden. Their influence will become greater because it's already existing. I mean in former times left-wing people voted for Ralph Nader or Jill Stein when they didn't like the Democratic nominee. Now they have their agents within the party itself. By achieving this they are not a mitigated fringe group anymore. Seriously, who cared about a Jill Stein supporter's opinion when making important decisions like picking the nominee for Vice President? Now, to appease the far-left the nomination for the Dem VP is a battleground already.

Seeing Lacy Clay being defeated by Cori Bush in Missouri's 1st Congressional District renews my concerns. 

On a side note I am relieved to see Roger Marshall beat Kris Kobach in Kansas.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Patine said:

I see @servo75, like you and a few other people here, believe the old urban legend of the "nuclear football," the "nuclear codes," or the "button," - that old myth that U.S. President can actually launch nuclear missiles of their own singular authority and decision, without any need for advise, clearance, failsafes, a formal release, and a long chain of protocols. The "nuclear football," is, of course, as us rational people know, Hollywood stuff. Let's be real! The only leader of an even half-assed nuclear power who has that singular, arbitrary discretion of launch in the world today is Kim Jong-un...

I spent a week in and out of various nuclear missile silos -- I was producing a video product for the US Air Force when I served.  I won't claim to be an expert on this topic, but I can share what I know (within reason, security-wise, of course).

First:  Yes, you are correct that there is no "Button" -- no matter how much Trump may claim that his button is bigger and more beautiful than North Korea's is.  

However, some of the rest of this is wrong.

The nuclear football does exist -- in fact, there are four of them.  One by the President at all times, and one by the VP, Sec of Defense, and...I actually forget the fourth.  Maybe Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff?  This is for succession purposes -- should something happen to one or more people on this list, we have the backups ready.

The "football" (bag) does not contain a button, but rather a series of codes and pre-established plans of where to attack in the event that an attack is necessary -- these plans range from a single missile to frankly nuclear annihilation.  The President chooses one of these plans and gives the relevant code to the person who carries the bag (an officer in the US Military) who then communicates that code to...those who need to be communicated to in order to activate the nuclear strike.  The Secretary of Defense then gives another code personally verifying that the order did indeed come from the President of the United States.  He is not necessarily voicing his own support for the plan -- only authenticating that it was the President's order, because the President...and the President alone...does indeed have the authority to launch such a strike.

There are no installed failsafes to question the sanity of the President, the legality of the order (other than confirming the President gave it) or checking with anybody else first.  If the President says go, your order is to go.

Some of the people responsible for launching such a strike might very well object when push came to shove -- but they would simply be arrested for refusing a lawful order and replaced by somebody who would follow it -- within minutes.  

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/3/2020 at 12:07 PM, Actinguy said:

Let him live in our heads.  Let us never forget how completely unacceptable every single day of his presidency has been.  Let it be our consuming thought.  Let us beg for the sweet, sweet release of voting him out of office.

Since that will never happen, a coup d'etat is the only viable solution.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...