Jump to content
270soft Forum

State of the Race: 14 Days Left


14 Day Poll  

29 members have voted

  1. 1. See the Data in the First Post: Who do you think wins if the election were today?

  2. 2. Biden is now at his all-time high in the national poll +11.8 vs Trump with only 2 weeks left. What best reflect your thoughts on this?

    • Biden is going to win in a landslide.
    • I'm not sure if it will hold, but it makes me feel as if it is unlikely Trump will be reelected.
    • National polls aren't very important, but I'm sure some of that has to apply to battleground states. I'd be worried if I were Trump.
    • National polls mean nothing, and nothing about them should be reflected upon the battleground states, which are the only polls that matter.
    • This is just fake news propaganda to discourage Trump voters from voting.
      0
    • Other (mention below)
  3. 3. Nate Silver mentions 8 things to do to stay sane will thinking about the election with only 2 weeks left. Which of the following are you doing?

    • Keep the context of the COVID-19 pandemic in mind.
    • Don’t assume the race is in the bag for Biden.
    • But also don’t buy the narrative that “polling is broken.”
    • Don’t get too obsessed with comparisons to 2016.
    • Don’t pay much attention to individual polls; wait for polling averages to move.
    • Beware talk of “October Surprises.” They’re usually overhyped.
    • Don’t read too much into the campaigns’ behavior.
    • Don’t get carried away with early voting data.
    • I'm not doing any of these.
  4. 4. Which state that haven't flipped parties in a presidential election in the 21st century do you think will flip in this election?

  5. 5. Which of the following do you think is most likely to happen if Trump loses reelection by over 300 EV? [Check all that apply]

    • He will concede the election to Biden by calling him, give a concession rally to his supporters---standard unofficial protocol.
    • Having accepted his defeat, he will also help Biden during the transition period --- standard unofficial protocol.
    • He will try to leave on a good note by doing some good during the lame duck period that even independent and some Democrats approve of.
    • He will not concede the election to Biden via phone call if he loses.
    • He will not give a concession rally to his followers if he loses.
    • He will either claim victory or call the election fake or rigged, refusing to accept the results.
    • He will refuse to cooperate with President-Elect Biden during the transition period.
    • He will likely go haywire if he loses, issuing all sorts of orders that are more geared at sabotaging Biden's presidency in advance than geared to deal with Covid or other important issues.
    • Whatever it is, it will be the worst behavior and actions that NeverTrumpers have ever seen from Trump.
    • Whatever it is, it will probably actually be the most presidential Trump has ever been.
    • I don't expect any significant change in Trump.
    • I expect that he sort of just gives up being president during this period, and sets his eye on what he's going to do next, using the presidency to promote that.
    • He will retaliate by firing a lot of people.
    • He will resign and let Pence handle being a "lame duck"
      0
    • He will start wearing dresses, makeup, ribbons, etc. and will be seen skipping and frolicking in the Rose Garden. This will consume the news for the entire Lame Duck period. Trump will never explain what happens to him.
    • Something else (mention below)


Recommended Posts

22 minutes ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

The fall of the United States Republic is near.

 

American Empire soon.

I fear some nutjob will try and shoot up congress one of these days, leading to exactly this sort of scenario.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 140
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

And these are powers you’re comfortable leaving unchecked, to grow and grow and grow? You don’t like American intervention, fine.  But the opposite of American intervention is not no intervention

Trump: People are tired of hearing from "Fauci and all these idiots" https://www.wane.com/news/trump-people-are-tired-of-hearing-fauci-and-all-these-idiots/ I apologize that I trust a doctor

It reminds of when people like Capone would donate to orphanages and other charities. They have an incentive to make themselves look as good as they can, in the limited areas where they'll allow it. 

Posted Images

40 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Trump was repudiating the Iraq War at the beginning of his primaries campaign in 2015. Not much to do with W. liking him or not.

You don’t think it has anything to do with the fact that his chief opponent at the time was W’s brother?

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

I fear some nutjob will try and shoot up congress one of these days, leading to exactly this sort of scenario.

This already happened, at a congressional baseball game 2-3 years ago.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Zenobiyl said:

I fear some nutjob will try and shoot up congress one of these days, leading to exactly this sort of scenario.

It'll still almost certainly be the short-lived, last-gasp thing I'd stated. It almost certainly wouldn't reverse the decline of American civilization that's so far along now.

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

I fear some nutjob will try and shoot up congress one of these days, leading to exactly this sort of scenario.

Mike Pence kills Trump on the steps of the Capitol building and becomes Caesar Pence Americana I

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Actinguy said:

You don’t think it has anything to do with the fact that his chief opponent at the time was W’s brother?

Trump is the first President in 40 years not to start a new, major foreign military intervention. Do you think that's because he was running against Jeb Bush?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, admin_270 said:

Trump is the first President in 40 years not to start a new, major foreign military intervention. Do you think that's because he was running against Jeb Bush?

I think it’s because he doesn’t have the attention span for it.

Trump likes everyone who tells him what he wants to hear.  Dictators figured that out very quickly.  That doesn’t mean the world is safer, it just means we’re not doing anything to help.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, ThePotatoWalrus said:

Mike Pence kills Trump on the steps of the Capitol building and becomes Caesar Pence Americana I

You've gotten your history wrong. Brutus and Cassius killed Caesar on the steps of the Senate building because they feared Caesar wanted to make himself King (or Rex, in Latin) and end the Republic. And, even this event would not stop the decline that's killing the American Civilization, no matter what form of Government it takes. At the time of the murder of Caesar. Rome was on the rise as a civilization, so the results were very different.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Actinguy said:

I think it’s because he doesn’t have the attention span for it.

Trump likes everyone who tells him what he wants to hear.  Dictators figured that out very quickly.  That doesn’t mean the world is safer, it just means we’re not doing anything to help.

So lack of attention span, or some other failing of character, could be the ONLY reason for a U.S. President to engage in military adventurism and other war crimes abroad, making bad situations around the world worse, creating unnecessary enemies, and building fertile breeding grounds for new terrorist groups to bite the U.S. in the ass later - and, of course,to fill the coffers of big, multi-national corporations - and no other possible reason?

Link to post
Share on other sites
43 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

Trump's 2015-6 campaign.

1. Drain the swamp.

2. Bring back manufacturing jobs, investment, and economy.

3. Reduce illegal immigration.

4. No more costly wars.

5. Conservative Justices on Supreme Court.

This list actually brings something into clear focus for me.

Trump is extremely indecisive, uneducated, and temperamental...leading to significant public arguments with his own political appointees and leaks on almost all of these topics.  Hell, back in 2016, we were even hearing reports that Trump wanted to fire Pence and get Christie as VP.

But what is the ONE area where we never hear that Trump is having second thoughts, doubting those around him, BEING doubted by those around him, changing his mind at the last minute, having to be talked down from a bad choice, making threats, demanding deals; etc etc?

The Supreme Court picks.
 

Whoever is behind the majority of the White House leaks has a vested interest in the Supreme Court picks being the height of professionalism — and everything else looking like a circus where the lions are in charge.

Im not sure what to make of that yet.  But the thought is leading up to something.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Patine said:

So lack of attention span, or some other failing of character, could be the ONLY reason for a U.S. President to engage in military adventurism and other war crimes abroad, making bad situations around the world worse, creating unnecessary enemies, and building fertile breeding grounds for new terrorist groups to bite the U.S. in the ass later - and, of course,to fill the coffers of big, multi-national corporations - and no other possible reason?

No.  Just this President.

What do you attribute it to?  Trump’s a racist and a rapist, you think he believes hugs are the secret to world peace?

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

I think it’s because he doesn’t have the attention span for it.

Trump likes everyone who tells him what he wants to hear.  Dictators figured that out very quickly.  That doesn’t mean the world is safer, it just means we’re not doing anything to help.

Foreign intervention (like in Iraq or Vietnam) is not “helping”

I disagree with Trump on many things, but I’m happy that he is shifting republicans away from foreign entanglement and military intervention. (Even if he’s making that shift for the wrong reasons)

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, admin_270 said:

You don't understand how a superpower maintains peace.

A true superpower that actually has a wise, responsible, far-sighted, balanced, and level-headed quality of true strength and great leadership would use that power in a direct way EXTREMELY sparingly. No such leaders have emerged in the U.S., or former such nations such as the Soviet Union, the British Empire, the Roman Empire, etc., unfortunately. :(

Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Zenobiyl said:

Foreign intervention (like in Iraq or Vietnam) is not “helping”

I disagree with Trump on many things, but I’m happy that he is shifting republicans away from foreign entanglement and military intervention. (Even if he’s making that shift for the wrong reasons)

Broadcasting to the world "You can do whatever you want, and we're not going to do anything about it" is not helping.  You don't have to take my word for it.  Ask a Jewish person who was alive during World War II.

But who benefits most from our declared absence from global affairs?

Russia.

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

Broadcasting to the world "You can do whatever you want, and we're not going to do anything about it" is not helping.  You don't have to take my word for it.  Ask a Jewish person who was alive during World War II.

But who benefits most from our declared absence from global affairs?

Russia.

Paternalistic foreign policy ends up, in the long run, being as just detrimental to the power doing it as all the nations they wreck and bad situations they make worse to bring, "betterment," to the globe. The British Empire is a very good case study here. I don't predict a better outcome at all - in the long-term - for the U.S. in this regard. In fact, quite likely a worse outcome down the road.

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

Paternalistic foreign policy ends up, in the long run, being as just detrimental to the power doing it as all the nations they wreck and bad situations they make worse to bring, "betterment," to the globe. The British Empire is a very good case study here. I don't predict a better outcome at all - in the long-term - for the U.S. in this regard. In fact, quite likely a worse outcome down the road.

I, for one, am shocked that we disagree on foreign affairs.  Shocked, I tells ya!

But back to the actual point:  You think Donald Trump is actually intentionally choosing this path out of his infinite wisdow and known dislike for getting into fights?

Or could it be because he doesn't know anything at all about foreign affairs, isn't trusted by those who do, won't accept advice from those who are willing to advise him, has lost the backing of his own military leaders, and is easily manipulated by the worst leaders this earth has to offer?

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

I, for one, am shocked that we disagree on foreign affairs.  Shocked, I tells ya!

But back to the actual point:  You think Donald Trump is actually intentionally choosing this path out of his infinite wisdow and known dislike for getting into fights?

Or could it be because he doesn't know anything at all about foreign affairs, isn't trusted by those who do, won't accept advice from those who are willing to advise him, has lost the backing of his own military leaders, and is easily manipulated by the worst leaders this earth has to offer?

Absolutely not. I didn't say his name once. I think his personal reasons for non-interventionism are highly disingenuous, corrupt, and self-serving. Don't get me wrong. But, non-interventionism, or at least using it sparingly and only in the absolute greatest need, I believe is the true path of wisdom and great leadership, if pursued with GENUINE and NOBLE intent. I was speaking on the latter in general, not whatever charlatanism Trump, himself, has behind claims to champion it.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Patine said:

Absolutely not. I didn't say his name once. I think his personal reasons for non-interventionism are highly disingenuous, corrupt, and self-serving. Don't get me wrong. But, non-interventionism, or at least using it sparingly and only in the absolute greatest need, I believe is the true path of wisdom and great leadership, if pursued with GENUINE and NOBLE intent. I was speaking on the latter in general, not whatever charlatanism Trump, himself, has behind claims to champion it.

Good.  Then we are agreed on my actual point.

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

Broadcasting to the world "You can do whatever you want, and we're not going to do anything about it" is not helping.  You don't have to take my word for it.  Ask a Jewish person who was alive during World War II.

But who benefits most from our declared absence from global affairs?

Russia.

Just look at Armenia and Azerbaijan. Or Eastern Ukraine. Or Taiwan, which is being threatened more often. Or India and China, who have been at loggerheads for the last few years. 

The world is unfortunately getting more dangerous than less. Like it or not, the US-EU world is going to be a better one than whatever the China-Russia duo has up it's sleeve. Nothing will be perfect, and it is far from perfect now. There have been and will be significant US foreign policy blunders. However, asking our allies to "go it alone" is not going to help world peace.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Hestia11 said:

Just look at Armenia and Azerbaijan. Or Eastern Ukraine. Or Taiwan, which is being threatened more often. Or India and China, who have been at loggerheads for the last few years. 

The world is unfortunately getting more dangerous than less. Like it or not, the US-EU world is going to be a better one than whatever the China-Russia duo has up it's sleeve. Nothing will be perfect, and it is far from perfect now. There have been and will be significant US foreign policy blunders. However, asking our allies to "go it alone" is not going to help world peace.

Yes, more wars to make these wretched situations far worse, cause more misery and damage, make more enemies and breed more hatred, create more breeding grounds for terrorists to plague the West down the line, and take on two other nuclear powers. Great plan! Sounds like fun! At least the resource, contracting, and armaments corporations will rake in more profits, and the sociopaths in the terrorist group, the CIA, get off their leashes for awhile. Stellar idea, there! :S

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

Yes, more wars to make these wretched situations far worse, cause more misery and damage, make more enemies and breed more hatred, create more breeding grounds for terrorists to plague the West down the line, and take on two other nuclear powers. Great plan! Sounds like fun! At least the resource, contracting, and armaments corporations will rake in more profits, and the sociopaths in the terrorist group, the CIA, get off their leashes for awhile. Stellar idea, there! :S

There will be wars one way or another. If we've learned anything from the duration of humanity, that is one. If you think for one second that if the US fully and completely pulled away from foreign affairs, with no strings attached whatsoever, that Russia wouldn't launch full-scale invasions of Ukraine and the Baltics, you're insane. Same with China and Taiwan. While the US has no specific attachments to Taiwan, China knows that the US will funnel in weapons to aid the Taiwanese if something bad would truly happen.

Hundreds of thousands, up to millions would die. 

Are there things that need to change? Absolutely. Particularly ending weapons sales to Saudi Arabia while they drone strike Yemen to bits. But a complete isolation from the world stage isn't going to help matters, either. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Hestia11 said:

There will be wars one way or another. If we've learned anything from the duration of humanity, that is one. If you think for one second that if the US fully and completely pulled away from foreign affairs, with no strings attached whatsoever, that Russia wouldn't launch full-scale invasions of Ukraine and the Baltics, you're insane. Same with China and Taiwan. While the US has no specific attachments to Taiwan, China knows that the US will funnel in weapons to aid the Taiwanese if something bad would truly happen.

Hundreds of thousands, up to millions would die. 

Are there things that need to change? Absolutely. Particularly ending weapons sales to Saudi Arabia while they drone strike Yemen to bits. But a complete isolation from the world stage isn't going to help matters, either. 

There are wars. Then there's being swamped in war, and developing an artificial sense of a "mandate," to force oneself into far more wars that become palatable or tenable. There's the two traits - very often forgotten today - that I like to perennially bring up - perspective and proportion. Even American military power has it's limits, and, given the dire fact often ignored, brushed aside, or even denied, that the Great, Massive, High-Tech, Overfunded War Machine has only outright won two - yes TWO - wars in post-WW2-er - Granada and Desert Storm - both because they were very similar in nature to the Six Day War, the Falkland War, and the Russo-Georgian War of 2008 in nature - doesn't really give much of a sense of confidence for such grand interventions in any case. And, I repeat, Russia and China are also nuclear powers with intercontinental missile range.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Patine said:

There are wars. Then there's being swamped in war, and developing an artificial sense of a "mandate," to force oneself into far more wars that become palatable or tenable. There's the two traits - very often forgotten today - that I like to perennially bring up - perspective and proportion. Even American military power has it's limits, and, given the dire fact often ignored, brushed aside, or even denied, that the Great, Massive, High-Tech, Overfunded War Machine has only outright won two - yes TWO - wars in post-WW2-er - Granada and Desert Storm - both because they were very similar in nature to the Six Day War, the Falkland War, and the Russo-Georgian War of 2008 in nature - doesn't really give much of a sense of confidence for such grand interventions in any case. And, I repeat, Russia and China are also nuclear powers with intercontinental missile range.

We are lucky that grand interventions of major size haven't had to happen. 

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...