2020 US General Election Thread X: For Those About to Vote

[Torisakia]

Well first off I'm immediately greeted by a plea for donations when I click on that link, so that's already off-putting.

His plans look almost verbatim to that of Obama's (which makes sense given he was his VP). It's the same copy-paste stuff we get from every Democratic candidate every election. "Fix the economy", "Give Affordable Healthcare". Has someone been counting how many times any of them have actually delivered on those promises.

Same with Trump, more or less.

When Obama took over the presidency the economy was fucked, so yeah I'd pretty much say he fixed it. He also delivered on healthcare, perhaps not perfect but partly because he asked a bipartisan congress to create one.

And no, not same as Trump, he has no plans to deliver on and he doesn't deliver anyway. He had Congress, he couldn't pass healthcare, he could hardly pass anything, his entire presidency has been by EO.

Where's the wall, did Mexico pay for it, whereas the big beautiful healthcare plan, where's the plan for the environment beyond just cutting regulations and leaving global bodies and treaties, where's an education plan..

..where's anything but his blathering lies?

Lying is a requirement to be a politician. So by that fact he's actually fully qualified.

[Ranoria]

Pretty certain he got elected because people voted for him. I thought that was how the system worked. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Well you are wrong.

The Electoral College doesn't take the Popular Vote into account. Trump lost the PV by almost 2 million+ but won the EC cause people in key states who should've voted sat out, leading to Trump winning the EC due to voter apathy and thus becoming the President.

Here's some advice: If you want to rail against the system, learn how the system works first.

The electoral college ensures that New York City and California don't run the country on their own, same concept as the Senate. You can't have the cities ruling the nation with no consideration for other groups. See: Czechoslovakia. Getting rid of said college would put a ton of states in a position where their populations are, in essence, powerless.

Now, you could argue: Who cares! The candidate most popular with the people should win. Well guess what kids, that's why we have state's rights. Some states do stuff, as a matter of fact, in direct opposition to the federal government. New Jersey, NY, California? Liberal as can be, (and California is an absolute dumpster fire), so everyone can be governed in a way they chose to be.

[Bombadil]

When Obama took over the presidency the economy was fucked, so yeah I'd pretty much say he fixed it. He also delivered on healthcare, perhaps not perfect but partly because he asked a bipartisan congress to create one.

And no, not same as Trump, he has no plans to deliver on and he doesn't deliver anyway. He had Congress, he couldn't pass healthcare, he could hardly pass anything, his entire presidency has been by EO.

Where's the wall, did Mexico pay for it, whereas the big beautiful healthcare plan, where's the plan for the environment beyond just cutting regulations and leaving global bodies and treaties, where's an education plan..

..where's anything but his blathering lies?

Lying is a requirement to be a politician. So by that fact he's actually fully qualified.

How sophisticated of you.

[Heloin]

Well you are wrong.

The Electoral doesn't take the Popular Vote into account. Trump lost the PV by almost 2 million+ but won the EC cause people in key states who should've voted sat out, leading to Trump winning the EC due to voter apathy and thus becoming the President.

Here's some advice, if you want to rail against the system, learn how the system works first.

Given that I like in a die-hard Republican state, it would actually be a wasted vote to vote for the Democratic candidate because, as far as I know, our electors can still vote for the Republican candidate even if they lose the popular vote in-state.

The fact that I can't even understand the system shows just how fucked up it is.

That's reaching. While it's technically possible such a situation is so unlikely as to be laughable.

Well you are wrong.

The Electoral College doesn't take the Popular Vote into account. Trump lost the PV by almost 2 million+ but won the EC cause people in key states who should've voted sat out, leading to Trump winning the EC due to voter apathy and thus becoming the President.

Here's some advice: If you want to rail against the system, learn how the system works first.

The electoral college ensures that New York City and California don't run the country on their own, same concept as the Senate. You can't have the cities ruling the nation with no consideration for other groups. See: Czechoslovakia. Getting rid of said college would put a ton of states in a position where their populations are, in essence, powerless.

Now, you could argue: Who cares! The candidate most popular with the people should win. Well guess what kids, that's why we have state's rights. Some states do stuff, as a matter of fact, in direct opposition to the federal government. New Jersey, NY, California? Liberal as can be, (and California is an absolute dumpster fire), so everyone can be governed in a way they chose to be.

The electoral college does nothing your suggesting it does.

[Ranoria]

Well first off I'm immediately greeted by a plea for donations when I click on that link, so that's already off-putting.

His plans look almost verbatim to that of Obama's (which makes sense given he was his VP). It's the same copy-paste stuff we get from every Democratic candidate every election. "Fix the economy", "Give Affordable Healthcare". Has someone been counting how many times any of them have actually delivered on those promises.

Same with Trump, more or less.

He wouldn't have to make plans for that if a certain Republican President didn't get elected due to voter apathy now, would he?

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-v ... on-2016-11

Bullshizzle, by the way. 2016 had a record voter turnout.

Given that I like in a die-hard Republican state, it would actually be a wasted vote to vote for the Democratic candidate because, as far as I know, our electors can still vote for the Republican candidate even if they lose the popular vote in-state.

The fact that I can't even understand the system shows just how fucked up it is.

That's reaching. While it's technically possible such a situation is so unlikely as to be laughable.

The electoral college ensures that New York City and California don't run the country on their own, same concept as the Senate. You can't have the cities ruling the nation with no consideration for other groups. See: Czechoslovakia. Getting rid of said college would put a ton of states in a position where their populations are, in essence, powerless.

Now, you could argue: Who cares! The candidate most popular with the people should win. Well guess what kids, that's why we have state's rights. Some states do stuff, as a matter of fact, in direct opposition to the federal government. New Jersey, NY, California? Liberal as can be, (and California is an absolute dumpster fire), so everyone can be governed in a way they chose to be.

The electoral college does nothing your suggesting it does.

Wow, I didn't see it that way lol

[San Lumen]

Well you are wrong.

The Electoral College doesn't take the Popular Vote into account. Trump lost the PV by almost 2 million+ but won the EC cause people in key states who should've voted sat out, leading to Trump winning the EC due to voter apathy and thus becoming the President.

Here's some advice: If you want to rail against the system, learn how the system works first.

The electoral college ensures that New York City and California don't run the country on their own, same concept as the Senate. You can't have the cities ruling the nation with no consideration for other groups. See: Czechoslovakia. Getting rid of said college would put a ton of states in a position where their populations are, in essence, powerless.

Now, you could argue: Who cares! The candidate most popular with the people should win. Well guess what kids, that's why we have state's rights. Some states do stuff, as a matter of fact, in direct opposition to the federal government. New Jersey, NY, California? Liberal as can be, (and California is an absolute dumpster fire), so everyone can be governed in a way they chose to be.

No it does not. You don’t get to rewrite history to suit your narrative. We were an agrarian society in 1789 and California didn’t exist. The electoral college is a relic of slavery and to act as a check on the people.

[Ranoria]

The electoral college ensures that New York City and California don't run the country on their own, same concept as the Senate. You can't have the cities ruling the nation with no consideration for other groups. See: Czechoslovakia. Getting rid of said college would put a ton of states in a position where their populations are, in essence, powerless.

Now, you could argue: Who cares! The candidate most popular with the people should win. Well guess what kids, that's why we have state's rights. Some states do stuff, as a matter of fact, in direct opposition to the federal government. New Jersey, NY, California? Liberal as can be, (and California is an absolute dumpster fire), so everyone can be governed in a way they chose to be.

No it does not. You don’t get to rewrite history to suit your narrative. We were an agrarian society in 1789 and California didn’t exist. The electoral college is a relic of slavery and to act as a check on the people.

California not existing at the time is completely irrelevant, and the point still stands. It ensures that states with not as much of a population have a voice, same as the senate.

Btw, equating everything with racism and slavery is just not good strategy, because it's absurd. So let's not do that.

[Torisakia]

Lying is a requirement to be a politician. So by that fact he's actually fully qualified.

How sophisticated of you.

Sometimes my genius is almost frightening.

Given that I like in a die-hard Republican state, it would actually be a wasted vote to vote for the Democratic candidate because, as far as I know, our electors can still vote for the Republican candidate even if they lose the popular vote in-state.

The fact that I can't even understand the system shows just how fucked up it is.

That's reaching. While it's technically possible such a situation is so unlikely as to be laughable.

Exactly. A Democrat would never win the popular vote in Alabama nowadays.

[Telconi]

The electoral college ensures that New York City and California don't run the country on their own, same concept as the Senate. You can't have the cities ruling the nation with no consideration for other groups. See: Czechoslovakia. Getting rid of said college would put a ton of states in a position where their populations are, in essence, powerless.

Now, you could argue: Who cares! The candidate most popular with the people should win. Well guess what kids, that's why we have state's rights. Some states do stuff, as a matter of fact, in direct opposition to the federal government. New Jersey, NY, California? Liberal as can be, (and California is an absolute dumpster fire), so everyone can be governed in a way they chose to be.

No it does not. You don’t get to rewrite history to suit your narrative. We were an agrarian society in 1789 and California didn’t exist. The electoral college is a relic of slavery and to act as a check on the people.

Well the people need to be checked, evidently.

[San Lumen]

No it does not. You don’t get to rewrite history to suit your narrative. We were an agrarian society in 1789 and California didn’t exist. The electoral college is a relic of slavery and to act as a check on the people.

California not existing at the time is completely irrelevant, and the point still stands. It ensures that states with not as much of a population have a voice, same as the senate.

Btw, equating everything with racism and slavery is just not good strategy, because it's absurd. So let's not do that.

That is not why it was created. That it is a relic of slavery and the Founding Fathers wanting a check on the people is historical fact. There was no other purpose. To say otherwise is revisionist history.

[US-SSR]

Okay, feast your eyes on this prediction. Just a note, it's not mine: it's a friend who voted for Trump in 2016 but Biden this year; he's a Democrat:

(Image)

What baffles me about his map is that he has Arizona going blue but for some reason, he has Michigan and Minnesota going red: it's literally almost the same as 2016 except Minnesota and Arizona are switched. Well, he has told me he thinks Trump will again regardless of who the Democrats nominated.

A blue Texas is more likely than a red Michigan. just sayin'.

[San Lumen]

How sophisticated of you.

Sometimes my genius is almost frightening.

That's reaching. While it's technically possible such a situation is so unlikely as to be laughable.

Exactly. A Democrat would never win the popular vote in Alabama nowadays.

Senator Doug Jones says hello.

[Shrillland]

It is now 12 AM EST. Election Day has officially begun in the Metropolitan USA. We'll have the numbers from Dixville Notch presently.

[New haven america]

Well you are wrong.

The Electoral doesn't take the Popular Vote into account. Trump lost the PV by almost 2 million+ but won the EC cause people in key states who should've voted sat out, leading to Trump winning the EC due to voter apathy and thus becoming the President.

Here's some advice, if you want to rail against the system, learn how the system works first.

1. Given that I like in a die-hard Republican state, it would actually be a wasted vote to vote for the Democratic candidate because, as far as I know, 2. our electors can still vote for the Republican candidate even if they lose the popular vote in-state.

3. The fact that I can't even understand the system shows just how fucked up it is.

1. Doesn't matter. Vote.
2. Nope, even if they could it'd be political suicide. Vote.
3. The system:

The Electoral College takes into account the amount of Congress members a state has and uses that number as the State's Vote (Representatives+Senators+State's Vote). In order to win the Presidency a candidate must get (Currently) 270 State Votes out of 538 Votes in order to become President (California has 55 votes, Texas 38, Ohio 18, Arkansas 6, etc...). This is decided by who wins the PV of each state, in which the chosen electors will then vote for the President themselves based on who the state picked (However, if the chosen electors decide to, they can vote against the wishes of the state, but this is illegal to do in half the country and political suicide in the other).

This leads to the conundrum where Presidents can win the Presidency without winning the Popular Vote, only the Electoral College and this has happened 4 times (John Quincey Adams doesn't count IMO because that whole election was fucked). These Presidents include: Rutherford B. Hayes, Benjamin Harrison, George W. Bush, and Donald Trump.

So yes it's important to vote, because the population of a state deciding to be apathetic is how we got Bush and Trump.

[Heloin]

The electoral college does nothing your suggesting it does.

Wow, I didn't see it that way lol

The small states and rural states don't matter as far as the electoral college is concerned. Honestly it makes states that have large populations the only ones that really matter. North Dakota isn't going to swing the election like Ohio or Florida so why care about them?

[Ranoria]

1. Given that I like in a die-hard Republican state, it would actually be a wasted vote to vote for the Democratic candidate because, as far as I know, 2. our electors can still vote for the Republican candidate even if they lose the popular vote in-state.

3. The fact that I can't even understand the system shows just how fucked up it is.

1. Doesn't matter. Vote.
2. Nope, even if they could it'd be political suicide. Vote.
3. The system:

Th Electoral Colleges into account the amount of Congress members a state has and uses that number as the State's Vote (Representatives+Senators+State's Vote). In order to win the Presidency a candidate must get (Currently) 270 State Votes out of 538 Votes in order to become President. This is decided by who wins the PV of each state, in which the chosen electors will then vote for the President themselves based on who the state picked (However, if the chosen electors decide to, they can vote against the wishes of the state, but this is illegal to do in half the country and political suicide in the other).

This leads to the conundrum where Presidents can win the Presidency without winning the Popular Vote, only the Electoral College and this has happened 4 times (John Quincey Adams doesn't count IMO because that whole election was fucked). These Presidents include: Rutherford B. Hayes, Benjamin Harrison, George W. Bush, and Donald Trump.

So yes it's important to vote, because the population of a state deciding to be apathetic is how we got Bush and Trump.

Gonna point to record voter turnout in 2016 again. Chill with that.

[Cultural Posadism]

It is now 12 AM EST. Election Day has officially begun in the Metropolitan USA. We'll have the numbers from Dixville Notch presently.

I'd post that Leslie Nielsen gif of him saying "good luck, we're all counting on you" but, tbh, it'd be a lie.

This one is more fitting of my mood rn.

[San Lumen]

Wow, I didn't see it that way lol

The small states and rural states don't matter as far as the electoral college is concerned. Honestly it makes states that have large populations the only ones that really matter. North Dakota isn't going to swing the election like Ohio or Florida so why care about them?

But a vote in North Dakota carries more weight then a vote New York or Illinois.

[Torisakia]

1. Given that I like in a die-hard Republican state, it would actually be a wasted vote to vote for the Democratic candidate because, as far as I know, 2. our electors can still vote for the Republican candidate even if they lose the popular vote in-state.

3. The fact that I can't even understand the system shows just how fucked up it is.

1. Doesn't matter. Vote.
2. Nope, even if they could it'd be political suicide. Vote.
3. The system:

Th Electoral Colleges into account the amount of Congress members a state has and uses that number as the State's Vote (Representatives+Senators+State's Vote). In order to win the Presidency a candidate must get (Currently) 270 State Votes out of 538 Votes in order to become President. This is decided by who wins the PV of each state, in which the chosen electors will then vote for the President themselves based on who the state picked (However, if the chosen electors decide to, they can vote against the wishes of the state, but this is illegal to do in half the country and political suicide in the other).

This leads to the conundrum where Presidents can win the Presidency without winning the Popular Vote, only the Electoral College and this has happened 4 times (John Quincey Adams doesn't count IMO because that whole election was fucked). These Presidents include: Rutherford B. Hayes, Benjamin Harrison, George W. Bush, and Donald Trump.

So yes it's important to vote, because the population of a state deciding to be apathetic is how we got Bush and Trump.

1. I'm not allowed to vote.
2. See above.
3. I still maintain that this system is fucking stupid

[Albrenia]

Sorry to interrupt the arguing, but was 2016 record setting for voter turnout? Because I often hear the Hillary didn't get nearly as many votes as Obama, and she won the popular vote by several million votes, so... the math doesn't quite add up.

[Dominioan]

Dawn of the Final Day

24 hours remain

[Heloin]

The small states and rural states don't matter as far as the electoral college is concerned. Honestly it makes states that have large populations the only ones that really matter. North Dakota isn't going to swing the election like Ohio or Florida so why care about them?

But a vote in North Dakota carries more weight then a vote New York or Illinois.

Just because the individual vote carries more weight doesn't change the fact that North Dakota doesn't matter to the electoral college. Small states aren't helped by the system, they're ignored.

[Bombadil]

1. Doesn't matter. Vote.
2. Nope, even if they could it'd be political suicide. Vote.
3. The system:

Th Electoral Colleges into account the amount of Congress members a state has and uses that number as the State's Vote (Representatives+Senators+State's Vote). In order to win the Presidency a candidate must get (Currently) 270 State Votes out of 538 Votes in order to become President. This is decided by who wins the PV of each state, in which the chosen electors will then vote for the President themselves based on who the state picked (However, if the chosen electors decide to, they can vote against the wishes of the state, but this is illegal to do in half the country and political suicide in the other).

This leads to the conundrum where Presidents can win the Presidency without winning the Popular Vote, only the Electoral College and this has happened 4 times (John Quincey Adams doesn't count IMO because that whole election was fucked). These Presidents include: Rutherford B. Hayes, Benjamin Harrison, George W. Bush, and Donald Trump.

So yes it's important to vote, because the population of a state deciding to be apathetic is how we got Bush and Trump.

Gonna point to record voter turnout in 2016 again. Chill with that.

The reason 2008 and 2016 appear to have record-breaking turnout is because the US population has increased, so there are more voters overall. But when you look at voter turnout as a percentage, it has decreased or stagnated in the last century.

Always good to read your own sources.

[US-SSR]

Who wins this election won't change anything.

The real problem for the United States is that ordinary Americans bear the cost of American hegemony, but the benefits of American hegemony are reaped by big companies and big capitalists.

Young people who cannot afford school loans join the army to fight for oil companies and dollars，

Ordinary Americans bear high medical insurance costs to ensure that large medical companies have enough money and experimental materials to support technological leadership

Even Trump did not care about bringing work back to the U.S. from the trade war, but to ensure the technological leadership and patent protection of U.S. companies. His trade agreement was merely to further expand the power and profitability of U.S. companies overseas. The more he signed A trade agreement will further help American companies transfer jobs.

I'm still waiting for the explanation of how four more years of Trump makes the dawn of the socialist workers' paradise more likely than four years of Biden would. Me, I'm a socialist anti-Republican. I vote for the candidate most likely to defeat any Republican who is running. In 2020, for President, that's Biden, QED.

[San Lumen]

1. Doesn't matter. Vote.
2. Nope, even if they could it'd be political suicide. Vote.
3. The system:

Th Electoral Colleges into account the amount of Congress members a state has and uses that number as the State's Vote (Representatives+Senators+State's Vote). In order to win the Presidency a candidate must get (Currently) 270 State Votes out of 538 Votes in order to become President. This is decided by who wins the PV of each state, in which the chosen electors will then vote for the President themselves based on who the state picked (However, if the chosen electors decide to, they can vote against the wishes of the state, but this is illegal to do in half the country and political suicide in the other).

This leads to the conundrum where Presidents can win the Presidency without winning the Popular Vote, only the Electoral College and this has happened 4 times (John Quincey Adams doesn't count IMO because that whole election was fucked). These Presidents include: Rutherford B. Hayes, Benjamin Harrison, George W. Bush, and Donald Trump.

So yes it's important to vote, because the population of a state deciding to be apathetic is how we got Bush and Trump.

1. I'm not allowed to vote.
2. See above.
3. I still maintain that this system is fucking stupid

To be honest I find it hard to believe your not allowed to vote. As long as your 18 and not a convicted felon in some states or incarcerated you can vote.