US Elections 2020 (geopolitics, informed debate, no ad hominems)

Biden

14 (66.7%)

Trump

7 (33.3%)

Total Members Voted: 21

Voting closed: November 02, 2020, 06:25:59 pm

[Alan Klein]

I also wonder if those that believe the NRA promoted myth that the purpose of the 2nd amendment is for people to have the means to take up arms against the government believe this is what the framers had in mind. Walking thru the halls of government armed and standing over elected officials with rifles, really?

The 2nd amendment says... "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Some read it thru thick ideological goggles and they see... "Unregulated weapons, being necessary for people to overthrow the government, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

They also are blind to the parts of the Constitution [Article I - Section 8] that state: The Congress shall have power to provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions. The Congress shall have power to provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the militia, and for governing such part of them as may be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states respectively, the appointment of the officers, and the authority of training the militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.

How you divine from the Constitution and 2nd amendment an expressed intent of providing people with arms as a built-in self-destruct button for the overthrow of the government requires some creative reading skills.

The Supreme Court heard those arguments and disagreed with them.

[TechTalk]

What arguments? What did they disagree with? What are you talking about? What decision are you referring to?

[Alan Klein]

What arguments? What did they disagree with? What are you talking about? What decision are you referring to?

The 2nd amendment confers the right to personally bear arms.  They aren't for hunting. 

[TechTalk]

And that relates in any way whatever to what I wrote how exactly?

[Alan Klein]

And that relates in any way whatever to what I wrote how exactly?

If states want to take up arms against a dictatorial federal government, as in 1861, they'll have a militia ready to go.  If you read federalist papers you'll see that an armed citizenry is the last resort to an oppressive regime.  Can you imagine living in Venezuela and only the government has the guns?  Obviously, the founder knew the importance of personal arms as they took up arms against King George III.  Why would they take away that right from themselves in a new government when there main concern was government having too much power?  They understood what the last resort meant.  When every other means of redress fails, a free people can turn to arms to defend and re-secure their liberties through the barrel of a gun.

[faberryman]

Or they can shoot themselves in the penis. It's pretty much one or the other. I think I'll draft an amendment to the Second Amendment to guarantee the right to keep and bear band-aids. Seems like the well regulated militias are going to need them. You really can't overthrow a tyrant if half of your troops are out with penis injuries.  Of course, they will only need small band-aids. If they needed big band-aids, they wouldn't have needed the guns in the first place.

[TechTalk]

The Constitution lays out the purpose of the militia clearly... "to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions." When it was needed to suppress insurrection during the Civil War, the Constitution functioned as intended, State Militias were called forth under the direction of the United States government and the insurrection was put down. The militia protected the security of the United States government as intended.

But that's just a distraction from the questions that I asked in regard to your vague ("The Supreme Court heard those arguments and disagreed with them.") in reply to what I had posted.

What arguments? What did they disagree with? What are you talking about? What decision are you referring to? How does it relate to what I wrote?

All you have done is to write a vague response and then distract from the questions trying to make some sense out of your reply. What does anything that you wrote have to do with a Supreme Court decision rejecting "those arguments" whatever that was you meant.

What arguments? What did they disagree with? What are you talking about? What decision are you referring to? How does it relate to what I wrote?

You routinely go off on these digressions as if we are supposed to be able to follow whatever thoughts are rattling around in your mind. Please try to stay on a topic and be focused with a reply that isn't so vague as to be meaningful only to yourself and generally followed by some diversion or distraction when asked for some clarity.

[faberryman]

What arguments? What did they disagree with? What are you talking about? What decision are you referring to? How does it relate to what I wrote?

[...sound of guy rummaging through a closet looking for that stack of NRA brochures he knows he has somewhere...]

[TechTalk]

[...sound of guy rummaging through the closet looking for that stack of NRA brochures...]

This might save you from anymore searching in the closet. You've reminded me how much decluttering my closets need!

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/how-nra-rewrote-second-amendment

[TechTalk]

re-secure their liberties through the barrel of a gun.

Are you sure you're not channeling Chairman Mao?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_power_grows_out_of_the_barrel_of_a_gun

[Robert Roaldi]

The Supreme Court heard those arguments and disagreed with them.

Notwithstanding all the posts subsequent to this one of yours, what you write makes it sound like the Supreme Court can't change its mind. Isn't that what some are trying to do right now with Roe vs Wade?

[Manoli]

So now, Trump has to pay and bus-in a couple of hundred ‘supporters’ to listen to his televised speech from the WH balcony yesterday. Pathetic.

[Manoli]

From The Times, today.

Boris Johnson has been warned that Trump is on course for a landslide defeat with his Democratic opponents set to land a historic “triple whammy” by seizing control of the presidency, the Senate and the House of Representatives.

Private polling and computer models shown to No 10 last month put Biden’s chances of victory at more than 70%. The challenger has since opened up a double-digit lead and one predictive model based on polling this weekend gave him an 85% chance of winning, with the chances of a landslide better than one in three.

Dominic Raab, the foreign secretary, recently visited America and met Nancy Pelosi, the House Speaker, and other congressional figures. He also talked to Chris Coons, described as “the Biden whisperer” in the Senate, as well as Richard Neal, a congressman seen as a power broker on Capitol Hill.

Karen Pierce, the British ambassador in Washington, is wooing Tony Blinken and Jake Sullivan, Biden’s foreign policy advisers, who are tipped to be secretary of state and national security adviser. Biden’s aides have resisted contacts with foreign diplomats after controversy about Trump team contacts with Russia before the last election.

Democrats also regard Trump as appalling and disgusting and there will be a penalty for people who sucked up to Trump. Angela Merkel didn’t. Macron did and then got tough. The Democrats don’t much like Brexit.”

British diplomats in America have sent telegrams predicting that Biden will probably prioritise a trans-Pacific trade deal, or even a deal with the EU, over a bilateral deal with Britain.

But many of Johnson’s most senior aides believe comparisons between Trump and Johnson damage Johnson. Dominic Cummings has told ministers to publicly keep their distance from the Trump administration.

[Manoli]

The poll linked to in the first post of this thread now showing Biden at his highest rating (since July 18th) with 350 EC votes v Trump’s 188 and the popular vote at 54% v 46%.

[faberryman]

The poll linked to in the first post of this thread now showing Biden at his highest rating (since July 18th) with 350 EC votes v Trump’s 188 and the popular vote at 54% v 46%.

You have to be careful with those polls. They don’t count Trump’s stealth voters. Those are the people who vote for Trump but are so ashamed of themselves for doing so that they lie to the pollsters. Granted, it is tough to admit, even to yourself, that you are a member of a cult, and that you got suckered into buying a red hat.

[faberryman]

So now, Trump has to pay and bus-in a couple of hundred ‘supporters’ to listen to his televised speech from the WH balcony yesterday. Pathetic.

It was so small, it didn't rise to the level of a crowd. I wonder where Trump found this odd group of Blacks and Latinos? They all looked so young. And what was up with the light blue shirts? Very unTrumpesque. Are we sure that they were at the right place? Maybe they all work at his golf club in Virginia, and he threatened to fire them if they didn't show up. So they figured they better go, and went ahead and got on the bus. Reports are they were offered peanuts or pretzels to snack on on the way up. None of them had ever been on a plane, so they didn't really understand what a special treat that was. Their job was to mill around the South Lawn for a couple of hours looking interested. They did a credible job on the milling around part, but they could use more training on looking interested. It also looked like Trump cheaped out on the signs. He knows as well as any politician that your supporters have to have signs to wave around or they get bored, so he definitely came up short there.  I don't know if his speech was carried on any channel other than Fox. The batteries in my TV remote died on me so I couldn't change channels to find out. To be honest, I couldn't take it anymore and scavenged some batteries out of my smoke detector, but by then the show was over.  I don't think I'm giving away any secrets when I say that he didn't pick up many votes. With three weeks to go, he is going to really have to get out there and rev up his base. He is going to Florida for three days of rallys. He's going to visit a bunch of old folks homes and really push the theme of not being afraid of the virus. Sounds like a plan.

[PeterAit]

We all know--or should know--that Biden has been endorsed bylarge numbers of retired military, national security personnel, GOP operatives, and GOP politicians, but don't think that Trump is without his own endorsements. For example, the Taiiban.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/taliban-on-trump-we-hope-he-will-win-the-election-withdraw-us-troops/

[Alan Klein]

We all know--or should know--that Biden has been endorsed bylarge numbers of retired military, national security personnel, GOP operatives, and GOP politicians, but don't think that Trump is without his own endorsements. For example, the Taiiban.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/taliban-on-trump-we-hope-he-will-win-the-election-withdraw-us-troops/

Peter,

Biden wants to pull out troops as well. Both candidates have the same policy. You'd think that CBS would mention Biden's position in the article.  But of course the fake news press's job is only to smear Trump.
https://www.theweek.in/news/world/2020/07/15/us-set-to-pull-out-of-afghanistan-regardless-of-the-election-result.html

[TechTalk]

The above is fake news. Biden has made it quite clear that he would retain a small footprint of troops in Afghanistan to monitor and respond to any re-emergence of ISIS or Al-Qaeda in that country. All one needs to do to confirm this is to actually bother to watch the interview with Biden to which the fake news commentary from The Week in India linked above refers.

https://www.youtube.com/Joe Biden talks Afghanistan, future of troop presence overseas

Or, there is the more recent Sept. 11, 2020 article from Axios below.

https://www.axios.com/biden-trump-911-legacy

"Biden made news on Thursday when he told Stars and Stripes that he supports a sustained U.S. military footprint of up to 1,500-2,000 on the ground — primarily for special operations against ISIS and other terror threats — in the war that began after the 9/11 terrorist attacks 19 years ago.

"These forever wars have to end ... but here's the problem, we still have to worry about terrorism," Biden said."

"Biden's insistence on a counter-ISIS force puts him to the right of President Trump's rhetoric — though the maximum levels Biden is talking about are lower than what the winner in November can expect to inherit — but the Democratic nominee's stance also could give some assurances to centrist voters from both parties."

Trump, on the other hand, has announced that he intends to withdraw all US forces from Afghanistan by the end of the year which prompted support for his re-election from the Taliban.

Military Times / Associated Press - Oct. 8, 2020

https://www.militarytimes.com/2020/10/08/taliban-cheer-trump-tweet-promising-early-us-troop-withdrawal-from-afghanistan/

"Military officials blindsided by Trump announcement of early US troop withdrawal from Afghanistan"

"The U.S. military was blindsided Thursday by President Donald Trump’s assertion that all U.S. troops will be out of Afghanistan by the end of the year, with U.S. officials saying they are not aware of such a plan and have gotten no actual order to accelerate the more gradual pullout they’ve been executing."Trump’s comments, laid out in a confusing progression of comments and a tweet, alarmed Pentagon and State officials who fear that putting a definitive date on troop withdrawal could undercut negotiations to finalize a peace deal between the Taliban and the Afghan government. They also fear a hasty withdrawal could force the U.S. to leave behind sensitive military equipment. And they continue to stress that the Taliban has still not met requirements to reduce violence against the Afghans, a key element of the U.S. withdrawal plan."

"The Taliban welcomed Trump’s announcements, which started with a tweet Wednesday saying “we should have the small remaining number of our BRAVE Men and Women serving in Afghanistan home by Christmas.” He reinforced early withdrawal plans Thursday morning, in a Fox Business Channel interview that understated the number of troops currently in Afghanistan."

Their policy positions are not the same. Please stop spreading fake news.

* And if you're unable to recognize real news and professional journalists and have to go to India to find fake news commentary in order to create a false narrative, you might want to consider slowing down to check your sources before blurting things out online or anywhere else.

[faberryman]

I thought I would share with you that some dickhead Trump supporter defaced all the Biden lawn signs in the neighborhood last night using black spray paint. Now everyone is going to have to make another $35 contribution to the Biden campaign to get a replacement sign. The irony. Meanwhile, Trump is going through all the sofas in the White House looking for change, as his campaign is now sputtering along on fumes. My sources tell me he has been reduced to taking the plane without the gold toilet. He has already hocked Melania's mink.