Official Discussion Thread: U.S Presidential Election 2020

[pachinko 10,755]

1 minute ago, SpadesToStart said:

That’s what happens when you refer to fallen soldiers as losers lol

Is this Georgia?

[Chromatican 4,046]

1 minute ago, OG Gaga Stan said:

Not to dampen the mood, but one of the other downsides of running a conservative like Biden (aside from the fact that it didn't work at all electorally) is... this:

We may have a Dem president, but he's considering filling his cabinet with Republicans. A nightmare. John Kasich is literally a radical right-winger on abortion rights; moderates and their Republican friends are going to ruin lives in their futile attempt to reach out to Republican voters that will never vote for them.

Great point. Why isn't Biden filling his cabinet with people that reflect the values of the people who voted for him? We are progressives who didn't want Trump. I'm tired of Biden talking about compromise and reaching across the aisle, the other side hates you hun.

[PartySick 172,545]

17 minutes ago, Gagaloo911 said:

That's honestly a slippery slope though, giving these companies the ability to outright ban people based on their own standards and opinions.

Lies, misleading posts, calls for violence and the like should all be flagged as such, yes, and suspend accounts for a specified time for repeated actions, but really thinking about this and considering it's been proven that social media companies are biased against antiestablishment opinions, views, and people, I don't really like the precedent that starts.

I suppose I just lean that way because we're accused of censorship a lot when we tell people we're not letting garbage flow from Qanon's veins and spill all over our forums

But Twitter is huge so I guess with a platform that big, their responsibilities and priorities change.

Just saying, if Trump made a GGD account, we'd ban him

18 minutes ago, Mikolaj said:

that's a very good and important reasoning. And in my experience it makes Trump supporters even harder to convince it's just their president spitting out garbage, not the whole world being out against them

This too

Y'all are prolly right

[Jill 31,812]

1 minute ago, OG Gaga Stan said:

Not to dampen the mood, but one of the other downsides of running a conservative like Biden (aside from the fact that it didn't work at all electorally) is... this:

We may have a Dem president, but he's considering filling his cabinet with Republicans. A nightmare. John Kasich is literally a radical right-winger on abortion rights; moderates and their Republican friends are going to ruin lives in their futile attempt to reach out to Republican voters that will never vote for them.

Remember the rumors of Biden picking a Republican as a VP? It didn't happen. If this does happen however we'll know where this administration lies, and it won't be nice. However I've always seen Biden as a nice person but ultimately just a form of damage control. I much prefer a progressive candidate but seeing the current political climate, Biden is the best choice.

[Gagaloo911 12,959]

2 minutes ago, OG Gaga Stan said:

Not to dampen the mood, but one of the other downsides of running a conservative like Biden (aside from the fact that it didn't work at all electorally) is... this:

We may have a Dem president, but he's considering filling his cabinet with Republicans. A nightmare. John Kasich is literally a radical right-winger on abortion rights; moderates and their Republican friends are going to ruin lives in their futile attempt to reach out to Republican voters that will never vote for them.

Important to point out that the Senate gets to confirm the President's Cabinet picks. And Republicans have already stated they won't confirm anyone deemed "too progressive."

Not saying this makes it okay, but we all know how Joe Biden likes to make deals with Republicans. 

[PartySick 172,545]

9 minutes ago, gabeoz said:

It’s good! It means that Biden got the military votes that they just counted overwhelmingly 

Almost like it was a choice between....

- The man who served the public for 50 years with two veteran sons and who's always shown the military respect

Or....

- The draft dodger that mocks POW's like McCain and privately calls service members "suckers" and "losers".

Tough choice

[Gagz4Gaga 7,278]

Ksksjdkd 

[BUtterfield 8 41,818]

Is Biden speaking tonight? I don’t see a streaming link on his YT channel 

[Lion Heart 15,041]

8 minutes ago, Lion Heart said:

I'm listening to a Harvard Law Professor who is explaining how Republicans in two states can overrule the popular and send a slate of electors to choose Trump as the "true" winner of their state: 

-Basically, after the election, the state chooses a slate of electors to cast their votes in the Electoral College. The electors usually go to the one who wins the popular vote in that state, but there is a catch. The Republican Legislature in a certain state *could* decide to send an alternate slate of electors and send Republican electors instead of Democrat ones that Biden won. This can happen in two states where Republicans control the Legislature and Governorship: Arizona and Georgia. 

-In other states where the Republicans have a majority in the Legislature, but have a Democratic Governor, like Pennsylvania, the Republicans *could* send Republican electors to the Electoral College, while the Democratic Governor could send Democratic ones since Biden won that state. However, the Vice President basically oversees this process: if he gets two slate of electors from a certain state like Pennsylvania, then Mike Pence could decide to choose the republican slate of electors as opposed to the democrat ones sent by the Governor. At this point, this may make its way too the Supreme Court, who *may* decided to intervene due to the conflicting slate of electors. Which way they decide to rule, if they decide to take the case, could be all up in the air. 

Tl;dr: Trump *could* technically steal the election by demanding that Republican Legislators send alternate electors to the Electoral College from Airzona, Georgia, and perhaps Pennsylvania. I believe the PA House Speaker already shut this down, but I need to double check. Prepare yourselves. 

Quoting myself to add more. 

In July 2020, the Supreme Court in a 9-0 vote said that "states can bind presidential electors' votes." 

"WASHINGTON (AP) — In a decision flavored with references to “Hamilton” and “Veep,” the Supreme Court ruled unanimously Monday that states can require presidential electors to back their states’ popular vote winner in the Electoral College.

The ruling, in cases in Washington state and Colorado just under four months before the 2020 election, leaves in place laws in 32 states and the District of Columbia that bind electors to vote for the popular-vote winner, as electors almost always do anyway.

So-called faithless electors have not been critical to the outcome of a presidential election, but that could change in a race decided by just a few electoral votes. It takes 270 electoral votes to win the presidency."

https://apnews.com/article/a398c3e7c8d2c4a1b9ad498ed5f86ed7

This deals with faithless electors. I need to research which 32 states bind electors to the popular vote winner and if this affects Republican Legislators overruling the popular vote. 

[pachinko 10,755]

@Jill r u celebrating yet 

[Gagaloo911 12,959]

5 minutes ago, PartySick said:

I suppose I just lean that way because we're accused of censorship a lot when we tell people we're not letting garbage flow from Qanon's veins and spill all over our forums

But Twitter is huge so I guess with a platform that big, their responsibilities and priorities change.

Just saying, if Trump made a GGD account, we'd ban him

This too

Y'all are prolly right

It's just a part of what comes with democracy I'm afraid, even when it comes to one side spewing utter nonsense and lies. In the marketplace of ideas, we just have to do all we can to break through and disarm these kinds of things and lies. That's what it means to be a free democracy!

Also, these companies can continue what they have been doing by flagging content that is misleading, false, or bad, and warning people. But these companies shouldn't be policing the speech of people. Period.

[Jill 31,812]

4 minutes ago, Gagaloo911 said:

Nahh. Not good enough. Not when these social media companies have become part of the (virtual) public square where people gather, debate, and have discourse.

It's only a matter of time before these places are legally considered public and that will simply not be able for them to do that kind of think when it's the modern day public square.

Yeah but no. These are all private companies that are selling you a product that you choose to use. There's no such thing as considering a private commercial product "legally public". The only way to actually do it is if the Gov't nationalizes it. When the government actually nationalizes Twitter and all of the others through a law, that's where your complaints will carry weight. Otherwise you're just against private property. Specifically, corporation's private property. And, look, that's not bad at all lol.

[Jill 31,812]

1 minute ago, pachinko said:

@Jill r u celebrating yet 

I started celebrating yesterday morning  

[Contessa 1,879]

2 minutes ago, Gagz4Gaga said:

Ksksjdkd 

The evil laugh. 

[PartySick 172,545]

8 minutes ago, Curunir said:

That's cool and all, but it's not going to happen.

The reaction by the people to this could literally lead to a civil war and the GOP would not risk this.

Yeah, they wouldn't be already talking Trump down if they were planning on pulling a stunt like this