Jump to content

How Trump Could Steal The Election


Alex_Krycek
 Share

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, MigL said:

And I'm starting to think that no matter how much some of the members of this forum ( along with some progressive Americans, and the rest of the free world ) may want it, America, as a whole, is not yet ready to embrace a progressive agenda.

Any time a progressive policy is put in front of the American people, they overwhelmingly support it.

Examples of Popular Progressive Policies:

1.   Medicare For All (Universal Healthcare) polls at 69% support:  https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/494602-poll-69-percent-of-voters-support-medicare-for-all

2.  67% Support a Living Wage (15 USD per hour)  https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/07/30/two-thirds-of-americans-favor-raising-federal-minimum-wage-to-15-an-hour/

3.  Green New Deal:  https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2019/06/green-new-deal-may-be-more-popular-carbon-tax/592201/

4.  Legalizing Marijuana Poll (two thirds support)  https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/11/14/americans-support-marijuana-legalization/

5.  Free College - Poll 58% support (https://thehill.com/hilltv/rising/461106-majority-of-voters-support-free-college-eliminating-student-debt)

 

Unfortunately, progressive policies are antithetical to the goals of corporate America, so they are usually subverted by Corporate Democrats, who serve Corporate interests rather than the American people.

 

Edited by Alex_Krycek
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:
20 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Most people knew it wouldn't work out.

I don't agree with this at all.  I know a few Trump supporters. 

Most people are not Trump supporters.

Even in the USA, he was in the minority when elected.

If his supporters didn't see the writing on the wall, that's their problem.

But most people live outside the US and most of us saw him as the fraud he is.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, iNow said:

I cannot emphasize this enough. The failure of democrats to take the senate is a really big effing deal.  

I shudder to think.

 

8 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Unfortunately, progressive policies are antithetical to the goals of corporate America, so they are usually subverted by Corporate Democrats, who serve Corporate interests rather than the American people

WTF are you talking about?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, StringJunky said:

Right-leaning Democrats, 'right' as in within the Democratic spectrum, that are Pro-Big Business, may seek to undermine  aspiring progressive policies from the left of the party.

Then they are idiots; progressive policies aren't meant to undermine a business; they're meant too ensure a business has customers... 😉

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Unfortunately, progressive policies are antithetical to the goals of corporate America, so they are usually subverted by Corporate Democrats, who serve Corporate interests rather than the American people.

I've always maintained that our biggest problems economically are caused by mixing the goals of public and private ownership. Public works need to be as free from profiteering as possible, but we go out of our way to include private interests, and it almost always ruins the efforts. Every American can send a letter to any other American for the same low cost because the system wasn't designed for profit, but that's being derided as socialism instead of using the right tool for the right job. 

IOW, both major parties serve a different set of billionaires. The People need to reassert their ownership or we're going to end up with a king who owns everything again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Most people are not Trump supporters.

Even in the USA, he was in the minority when elected.

If his supporters didn't see the writing on the wall, that's their problem.

But most people live outside the US and most of us saw him as the fraud he is.

 

 

True, but unfortunately 73 million people support him in the US, approximately a third of the country.  

1 hour ago, Phi for All said:

Every American can send a letter to any other American for the same low cost because the system wasn't designed for profit, but that's being derided as socialism instead of using the right tool for the right job. 

Good example.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Unfortunately, progressive policies are antithetical to the goals of corporate America, so they are usually subverted by Corporate Democrats, who serve Corporate interests rather than the American people.

I question this conclusion. Progressive goals like universal healthcare lowers the private coverage costs employers must pay today. It’s one of the single largest line expenses especially for an SMB. 

Morr healthcare availability will also mean fewer sick workers and reduced lost hours due to illness and out of office / called in sick issues  

The progressive goal of better education and lower / shared college costs makes workers more capable and require less training / massively decreases time to productivity when they get hired... plus makes them more likely to achieve productivity gains moving forward Sind they’re beginning from a better educated baseline.  

The progressive goal of increasing wages and lowering inequality means more money will be in people’s pockets to spend at these businesses and use toward purchasing their products. 

The only real thing antithetical to corp America is higher taxes, which I understand, but this really needs to be framed as a total cost calculation where returns on investment are realized instead of solely as a tax expenditure calculation.

Much like my total healthcare expenditure would go down under a universal healthcare system relative to my current private healthcare costs even if my total income taxes went up, the same is largely true for corporations. 

And it’s also just the right thing to do, but I understand it’s generally easier to convince people with economic arguments rather than moral ones 

Edited by iNow
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Any time a progressive policy is put in front of the American people, they overwhelmingly support it.

I think it depends a lot on framing as well as whether folks think that they (or someone like them) could eventually benefit from it. For example in a study there was significant support  for housing supplements when a white family was on a brochure, but that support dropped when a black family was depicted. Similarly, (white) parents support ethnicity as part of admissions if they are shown images of Asian students, but are for race-free admission process if Asians are not mentioned.

I.e. folks are not fundamentally against policies that are generally considered progressive, but they need it to be couched differently, especially if folks do not see a benefit for themselves.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

Any time a progressive policy is put in front of the American people, they overwhelmingly support it.

Yeah, you see videos of people doing surveys all the time.
Every time some guy in camo fatigues, with an assault rifle and 30 round clip, is asked about things like medicare for all, living minimum wage, carbon tax, legalizing pot or forgiving student debt, they are all for it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Alex_Krycek said:

True, but unfortunately 73 million people support him in the US, approximately a third of the country.  

  

They participated in the democratic process though, didn't they?

...and for many their vote may have been intended as cast as a vote against the alternative, rather than intended as support for Trump. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

and for many their vote may have been intended as cast as a vote against the alternative, rather than intended as support for Trump. 

This argument was more appropriate in 2016 when he was running against Hillary Clinton, but doesn’t much hold water in this 2020 election against Biden (who is pretty widely liked by folks across the ideological spectrum). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, John Cuthber said:

Good news; two thirds don't.

 

 

One third remained neutral / inactive, so they are a non-factor.

1 hour ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

They participated in the democratic process though, didn't they?

I'm all for that.  The more people who vote, the better.  

The one's who want to undermine the process by refusing to accept the results are the problem.  

Edited by Alex_Krycek
Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, Alex_Krycek said:

One third remained neutral / inactive, so they are a non-factor.

I'm all for that.  The more people who vote, the better.  

The one's who want to undermine the process by refusing to accept the results are the problem.  

I'm not against Trump contesting the election in a legal manner. It won't get him anywhere. He can point to anecdotal evidence of illegal voting, but it won't be significant enough to cast doubt on the election for most Americans IMO.

At the same time do you see rioting in the streets? Compare with what it would have undoubtedly been like if Trump had won.

1 hour ago, iNow said:

This argument was more appropriate in 2016 when he was running against Hillary Clinton, but doesn’t much hold water in this 2020 election against Biden (who is pretty widely liked by folks across the ideological spectrum). 

Both can be true. Hilary can be disliked and Biden can be liked while still have misgivings about Democrat politics. 

Didn't Biden outperform down-ticket Democrats?

That's democracy. They voted. They didn't tell us why. When you think of a better system let us all know.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, iNow said:

This argument was more appropriate in 2016 when he was running against Hillary Clinton, but doesn’t much hold water in this 2020 election against Biden (who is pretty widely liked by folks across the ideological spectrum). 

Not to mention that the 2016 electorate has been dissected to death. More likely folks disliking Clinton were simply not turning up. There is a reason why folks voted for Trump in 2016 and that reason is not pretty. I doubt it has changed much this time around, but studies will tell.

What is worrying is the strong support even after demonstrating that level of overall stupidity and incompetence. Just imagine what would have happened if Trump was a more capable autocrat and undermined democracy more effectively. Rather obviously a large swathe of the population as well as the political establishment is rather fine with subverting democratic procedures. So if an actual capable autocrat came along, things might look rather dire. After all, it does not seem that the mechanisms are that resilient in the US, as one might have hoped. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

When you think of a better system let us all know.

https://www.scienceforums.net/topic/100305-is-it-true-about-the-us-ballot-papers/page/2/?tab=comments#comment-1108258

 

33 minutes ago, CharonY said:

What is worrying is the strong support even after demonstrating that level of overall stupidity and incompetence

Agreed

33 minutes ago, CharonY said:

if an actual capable autocrat came along, things might look rather dire. After all, it does not seem that the mechanisms are that resilient in the US, as one might have hoped. 

It’s not over yet. Power hasn’t yet transitioned and they’re actively blocking intelligence briefings to Biden while firing anyone who can provide oversight (Sec Def Esper today, and head of CIA and FBI likely soon)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, CharonY said:

So if an actual capable autocrat came along, things might look rather dire. After all, it does not seem that the mechanisms are that resilient in the US, as one might have hoped. 

Agree with this.  Arguably the only thing that saved the US this time was the Trump sheer incompetence. 

Edited by Alex_Krycek
Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, J.C.MacSwell said:

Compare with what it would have undoubtedly been like if Trump had won.

There will always be "doubt" about that.

1 hour ago, Sensei said:

Fox News interrupted broadcast from the White House conference, similar like CNN earlier this week, because of D.T.'s press secretary was lying..

Fox has cheerfully broadcast lies before- their own, and other people's.
It's unlikely that they suddenly developed morals.

SoI wonder why they aren't broadcasting Trump (and co)'s lives.
I'm cynical enough to think that it's to save Trump supporters from exposure the evidence that Trump is a fraud.
If they don't see him acting like a fool, they might not realise he's a fool.
 

It's not going to influence his die-hard supporters or his equally die-hard opponents.
But there's a group- even now - who are undecided.
If you show that group pictures of Trump saying "the elections were rigged " but without giving any evidence,, at least some of them will realise he's lying.

And I think Fox is happy to avoid that, while also maintaining some sort of "moral high ground" by not broadcasting the lies.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.