[POLL] 2020 U.S. Presidential Election

[Lacius]

Things are definitely more tense than usual, especially with the coronavirus always in the back of everyone's minds. I've read a report the other day that said 1 in 4 young adults between the ages of 18 to 24 have "seriously considered suicide" in the last few months, the figure was shocking to me. A lot of people genuinely believe that life is just not worth living anymore with all the racial tension, lockdowns et cetera. I can only hope that things improve over time, once COVID is a distant memory, the election is over and the rioting comes to an end. Sooner rather than later would be good, too.
I think this disagreement boils down to our definitions of "planning". I personally plan for every eventuality I can think of at any given time because I don't like to be caught with my pants down. What you're describing sounds more like "scheming" to me. If you're accusing me of thinking that there's a secret cabal of hood-wearing subterranean lizardmen who have already chosen Kamala Harris as the next president and the whole election is actually a sham then that's not quite right. With that being said, it's pretty obvious that this Corvette doesn't have a lot of mileage left in it, which probably contributed to Joe picking a much younger candidate who's at no risk of an early decline.

It sounds like "scheming" when I describe your conspiracy theory because you literally described it as "scheming." To contrast what you said with the word "scheming" is a lie.

It's hilarious that the people who are crying over "democracy dying" in the United States are the same people who have been kicking up a fuss over the results of the election for nigh on 4 years now, tried to depose the duly-elected President in every way they knew how and now want to replace him with an unelected VP using a switcheroo as soon as Biden is "no longer capable of fulfilling his function". It's as if the DNC was ran by Dick Dastardly, the schemes are comical and transparent.

I await your recantation. Arguably, we just got one from you.

 

[Foxi4]

It sounds like "scheming" when I describe your conspiracy theory because you literally described it as "scheming." To contrast what you said with the word "scheming" is a lie.

I await your recantation.

What's there to recant? I described my sentiment precisely, although I used harsher phrasing. As soon as/if Biden is incapable of holding office, there will be a switcheroo for a candidate that, in my eyes, did not receive the support required. Let's roll back the tape where I clarified that:

The way I look at it, people vote for the presidential candidate. The running mate is there to do just that - run with them, serve as an assistant and in the event of an *unexpected* death/incapacitation they can temporarily step in until an actual President is elected. Never in the history of the country was there a situation when people voted for the running mate because they expected the candidate to conk out, now this is a very real possibility. Not conspiracy, merely an observation. Nobody votes for the running mate, they're voting for the candidate.

It's the expectation that makes this situation different from the usual scenario - the fact that we're even having this conversation at all is evidence enough that it's crossed people's minds. You yourself "put more scrutiny on Harris because of Joe Biden's age", and you don't find that objectionable. Seems to me like you're splitting hairs here, but admittedly I may have used phrasing that was too harsh. I'm certainly not going to recant it as it's an opinion I've held throughout this exchange and I maintain it now - Biden is old, I don't expect him to be mentally or physically capable to fulfill his obligations throughout his term and I do believe Harris was the obvious contingency plan. Note that I used the phrase "very real possibility", as opposed to "objective".

 

[Lacius]

Biden is old, I don't expect him to be mentally or physically capable to fulfil his obligations throughout his term and I do believe Harris was the obvious contingency plan. Note that I used the phrase "very real possibility", as opposed to "objective".

This isn't what you originally spouted as your conspiracy theory, where you claimed the DNC was scheming to replace Biden with Harris after the election, but if you want to delete your original post like you did other people's posts and recant or dilute your original claim, that would at least make you consistent.

Edit: To be clear, if you're merely claiming that Harris as the VP pick was in part because she could replace Biden if he had to step down, I don't disagree with you. That calculation goes into just about every VP pick, regardless of how likely it is to happen. However, that wasn't your original claim, or I wouldn't have held your feet to the embers on this.

 

[Foxi4]

This isn't what you originally spouted as your conspiracy theory, where you claimed the DNC was scheming to replace Biden with Harris after the election, but if you want to delete your original post like you did other people's posts and recant or dilute your original claim, that would at least make you consistent.

Not immediately after the election, I don't believe I claimed that at any stage. What I did say was that Harris was his wobbling mate pushing him to the finish line and that he will be replaced as soon as he is no longer able, which is the explicit function of the VP. My objection springs from the fact that it's plausible in the foreseeable future which significantly changes the election paradigm - I don't find that statement objectionable, and I maintain it as my position.

 

[Lacius]

Not immediately after the election, I don't believe I claimed that at any stage. What I did say was that Harris was his wobbling mate pushing him to the finish line and that he will be replaced as soon as he is no longer able, which is the explicit function of the VP. My objection springs from the fact that it's plausible in the foreseeable future which significantly changes the election paradigm - I don't find that statement objectionable, and I maintain it as my position.

To be clear, if you're merely claiming that Harris as the VP pick was in part because she could replace Biden if he had to step down, I don't disagree with you. That calculation goes into just about every VP pick, regardless of how likely it is to happen. However, that wasn't your original claim, or I wouldn't have held your feet to the embers on this.

I also never used the word "immediately" with regard to what you claimed would happen after the election, so please don't argue against strawmen when trying to dig yourself out of the hole you dug.

You claimed the DNC was scheming to replace Biden with Harris after the election, but this is a conspiracy theory devoid of any evidence. I'm happy to accept this as your recantation and move on. The conspiratorial post should probably be deleted though.

 

[Doran754]

GBATemp is definitely 95% lefties, the fact the poll is so close is kind of strange. I expect a trump victory anyway.

 

[ov3rkill]

I'm not American. But I vote for Trump. This will be an interesting election. Looking forward to your new POTUS. Trump or otherwise.

 

[Lacius]

GBATemp is definitely 95% lefties, the fact the poll is so close is kind of strange. I expect a trump victory anyway.

Trump won the GBATemp poll in 2016 by 7.8 points. Anyone who supports Trump this time around should be nervous by the 2020 poll results.

The site is definitely not "95% lefties."

 

[Foxi4]

To be clear, if you're merely claiming that Harris as the VP pick was in part because she could replace Biden if he had to step down, I don't disagree with you. That calculation goes into just about every VP pick, regardless of how likely it is to happen. However, that wasn't your original claim, or I wouldn't have held your feet to the embers on this.

I also never used the word "immediately" with regard to what you claimed would happen after the election, so please don't argue against strawmen when trying to dig yourself out of the hole you dug.

You claimed the DNC was scheming to replace Biden with Harris after the election, but this is a conspiracy theory devoid of any evidence. I'm happy to accept this as your recantation and move on. The conspiratorial post should probably be deleted though.

Have it your way. I think the probability of this scenario playing out exactly as I predict it is so high that it may as well be upgraded from contingency plan to intentional decision, or "scheming", if you will - I myself am not a stickler for phrasing. We actually agree on the fact that this is a possibility, we simply have a difference of opinion when it comes to its probability - I treat it basically as a given, you treat it as "likely". The difference between the two is that one puts culpability on the party for pushing a candidate that's not fit for purpose, which is my position, whereas the other indicates foresight - that'd be your position. I won't clarify this any further, I think it's clear enough.

 

[Lacius]

Have it your way. I think the probability of this scenario playing out exactly as I predict it is so high that it may as well be upgraded from contingency plan to intentional decision, or "scheming", if you will - I myself am not a stickler for phrasing. We actually agree on the fact that this is a possibility, we simply have a difference of opinion when it comes to its probability - I treat it basically as a given, you treat it as "likely". The difference between the two is that one puts culpability on the party for pushing a candidate that's not fit for purpose, which is my position, whereas the other indicates foresight - that'd be your position. I won't clarify this any further, I think it's clear enough.

The claim that the DNC was scheming to replace Biden with Harris after the election is an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory. An argument can be made that you're hypocritically deleting other people's conspiracy theories. I haven't even mentioned the hypocrisy of deleting anti-Trump posts on the arbitrary basis of COVID-19 being mentioned, while you yourself are supporting Trump and aren't deleting similar anti-Biden posts. If I were you, I'd resign as a moderator and/or try to remedy the situation.

Oh, and I never said Harris replacing Biden is "likely." Also, as we already established, Harris would not be unelected nor at all illegitimate if she were to replace Biden. She was arguably a good pick, and there would be nothing controversial about her becoming president.

 

[Joe88]

This isn't what you originally spouted as your conspiracy theory, where you claimed the DNC was scheming to replace Biden with Harris after the election, but if you want to delete your original post like you did other people's posts and recant or dilute your original claim, that would at least make you consistent.

Edit: To be clear, if you're merely claiming that Harris as the VP pick was in part because she could replace Biden if he had to step down, I don't disagree with you. That calculation goes into just about every VP pick, regardless of how likely it is to happen. However, that wasn't your original claim, or I wouldn't have held your feet to the embers on this.

Its getting a little harder to deny thats whats going to happen when biden called it "harris biden administration" and harris called it the "harris administration" at 2 separate events days apart https://nypost.com/2020/09/15/joe-biden-accidentally-refers-to-harris-biden-ticket/amp/

I guess you can pass off the biden one as yet another gaffe on the towering pile already, but harris making that mistake is another thing.

 

[Foxi4]

The claim that the DNC was scheming to replace Biden with Harris after the election is an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory. An argument can be made that you're hypocritically deleting other people's conspiracy theories. I haven't even mentioned the hypocrisy of deleting anti-Trump posts on the arbitrary basis of COVID-19 being mentioned, while you yourself are supporting Trump and aren't deleting similar anti-Biden posts. If I were you, I'd resign as a moderator and/or try to remedy the situation.

Oh, and I never said Harris replacing Biden is "likely." Also, as we already established, Harris would not be unelected nor at all illegitimate if she were to replace Biden. She was arguably a good pick, and there would be nothing controversial about her becoming president.

Patently untrue, I've deleted huge swathes of pro-Trump posts as well, particularly if they were inflammatory - you of all people know this as many were directed at you. You are more than welcome to report any posts that you consider to be conspiratorial in nature - I encouraged notimp to do so and I encourage you to do the same. I'm not particularly worried considering this expectation is prevalent on both sides of the aisle, or at least that's my impression from talking with friends who have diametrically opposite political views. I may be wrong, I'm not infallible, but I wear my heart on my sleeve and my political positions on the chest - I'm most definitely not going to adjust them for your, or anybody else's consumption.

 

[RandomUser]

Yes. That's the line of succession. However, It wasn't an open secret in 2016 or 2020 that Trump wouldn't serve a term. I think most people will agree that Biden will not serve out a full term in office, and so the first female president might not have been elected to that office. Not only that, I imagine shed lose re-election.

But right now I think Trump will win re-election, so it doesn't really matter.

Sorry to burst your bubble, no female alive is going to be the first president.
Because AFAIK Edith Bolling Galt Wilson was the first female president.

 

[Lacius]

Its getting a little harder to deny thats whats going to happen when biden called it "harris biden administration" and harris called it the "harris administration" at 2 separate events days apart https://nypost.com/2020/09/15/joe-biden-accidentally-refers-to-harris-biden-ticket/amp/

I guess you can pass off the biden one as yet another gaffe on the towering pile already, but harris making that mistake is another thing.

Nothing about this is evidence for the conspiracy theory @Foxi4 is spouting.

Patently untrue, I've deleted huge swathes of pro-Trump posts as well, particularly if they were inflammatory - you of all people know this as many were directed at you.

I didn't say you didn't delete pro-Trump posts. Deleting huge swathes of pro-Trump posts changes nothing about the hypocrisy you've demonstrated other times. As I've already mentioned, you've deleted unsubstantiated conspiracy theories in some cases but left your own in other cases. You've also deleted posts related to COVID-19, which is very much relevant to the 2020 presidential election in the United States. An argument can be made that a person with obvious political biases and the aforementioned history of hypocrisy maybe shouldn't be the one making the decision about whether or not COVID-19 should be discussed in a topic about the 2020 presidential election, for example. An argument can be made that you don't have the ability to be impartial.

You are more than welcome to report any posts that you consider to be conspiratorial in nature - I encouraged notimp to do so and I encourage you to do the same.

This isn't about what I do/don't report. This is about what you do/don't delete.

Edit: In other words, conspiracy theories aren't necessarily against the rules by themselves. You're the one who chose to delete them and say being conspiracy theories is why. If that's the decision you're going to make, you should be consistent. If something isn't explicitly against the rules, my role as a reporter is pretty irrelevant, since I shouldn't necessarily report it.

I may be wrong, I'm not infallible

In a previous post today, you implied that you might be infallible.

but I wear my heart on my sleeve and my political positions on the chest - I'm most definitely not going to adjust them for your, or anybody else's consumption.

I'm not asking you to change your heart or your political beliefs. I'm pointing out that, with regard to your actions as a moderator, you should act in a way that's impartial and consistent. You don't appear to have been doing this.

 

[netovsk]

I hope you guys elect whoever makes the exchange rates for dollar go down in my country.

 

[Kurt91]

I've been lurking and not really saying anything, but I think there's a minor misunderstanding between Foxi4 and Lacius.

Lacius seems to think that Foxi4 is claiming that the Democrats plan to either actively off Biden shortly after the election so that Harris is 'promoted' to President, or have Biden nearly immediately step down for the same effect.

Foxi4 seems to be stating that while Biden may have a good chance of winning the election, none of the Democrats actually believe that he'll last a full term, and since they want Harris as President, got her to become the potential Vice President. Instead of Harris being the *just-in-case* backup in case anything happens to Biden, they fully expect something to happen and want Harris to be in a position to get the job. Essentially treating VP promotion as an inevitability in this case rather than a backup plan.

There's a major difference between the two scenarios. Even prior to reading the discussion going on, I already had a suspicion that Harris was the 'desired' candidate and that nobody fully expects Biden to last a full term on his own. They want Harris as President for at least the last part of a term, and since she wasn't succeeding with her own presidential campaign, they went with making her the potential VP for Biden's campaign. No, I don't think they're going to force Biden to step down immediately after taking office, nor do I think that he's going to die of un-natural causes, but they're planning under the assumption that he dies or something during his term. My prediction is that if Biden wins and becomes President, something will happen to cause Harris to take that promotion either at the end of the first year or during the second year.

Also, keep in mind how much Obama seemed to age between when he first took office and when his two terms were up. Being President and taking responsibility for running an entire country is no doubt insanely stressful, and that stress can't be good for a person's health.
(Going off the assumption that you consider Trump a terrible president, that's even more reason to agree with me on this point. Imagine the additional stress of cleaning up Trump's mess on top of the usual stress of holding the office.) I honestly cannot see Biden lasting through an entire term if that's going to be the case. Regardless of your political beliefs, I can't imagine not agreeing with this point. If you like Trump, then you already probably don't have a positive outlook on Biden and easily accept this train of thought. If you dislike Trump, then like I said, that just makes my argument even stronger about compounding additional stress and the apparent effect it seems to have on the aging process.

 

[kevin corms]

Green party is the only good one, dems will make sure they go nowhere.

 

[omgcat]

Information WAS withheld, the governor of New Jersey stated that if he had been aware of the information trump had back in february, he would have shut down much earlier. This could have saved thousands of lives. There was no way that the NJ gov would have had access to the same national intelligence that the president have. so trump downplaying this virus and misleading states has had a huge negative result that likely has lead to peoples deaths.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/09/09/politics/phil-murphy-coronavirus-trump-woodward-cnntv/index.html

in other news, there is documentation to show that The U.S. Treasury Department “demand[ed] operating control” of the U.S. Postal Service as a condition for approving a $10 billion loan to the agency, new documents reveal, heightening concerns about the extent to which the Trump administration is influencing the nonpartisan USPS. Mnuchin works directly under trump and tried to take control over the
USPS. One party is clearly trying to manipulate the postal service, and it is not the democrats.

 

[Iamapirate]

Sorry to burst your bubble, no female alive is going to be the first president.
Because AFAIK Edith Bolling Galt Wilson was the first female president.

She really wasn't though.

 

[Lacius]

RBG is dead. Any progressives voting Other wish to change their votes?