t
yea, harris won for sure, but bulldozed is a bit of a reach... I think Harris won because a lot of the undecided would gladly jump over towards Biden, but not the people in the pence fence..
Pence fence? You mean Trump dump, as it's really Trump that's the star here, and Pence is just riding on Trump's coattail. DeAnna's tweets towards Harris is hypocritical and disgusting though, she's complaining about Harris's facial expression as if Trump doesn't have memes off his stupid expressions during the debates.
It will not sway a majority, but it appealed to relevant voter groups more than it angered them. It does not matter what trump friendly media say about it, you can poll that. It is not going to make huge numbers in pennsylvania or wisconsin, but it is going to take another change from trump to get these voter groups he desperately needs back. Whether the people who were going to vote trump no matter what liked pence better is not important. What is important was that the people who would likely vote biden but were a little conflicted are less conflicted (or at least not more conflicted) now, as Biden is the frontrunner.
In that regard, Harris won. Her aim was to do no harm and i think she exceeded that bar and created some goodwill.
The point i am trying to make is, even if VP debates would account to a lot, Harris win wouldn't make a large enough shift like the left media is making it sound. You can say Harris is the clear winner when majority of the people think she won. They don't.
FOr me, the good thing was we saw the pre-election campaign Harris back. The one as a prosecutor and initial Senator days everyone liked. Being from the bay area, she was eyed as a future candidate for a long time, but in recent times, her emotional type pitching which diluted her ingenuity. So Harris has helped people who would reluctantly support Biden show more faith in him, and maybe even bring a few of the undecided in the democrats camp, but wouldn't sway the Trump base. So her win isn't as big as the left makes it sound like.
Anyways, i'd say i am happy to see Harris as the VP nominee. We are all looking as Biden as a 1 term President if he wins, so the VP pick becomes even more crucial and she is a good candidate for next in line. Unlike Pence, who shouldn't be in the line.
If only my puns were as good as yours... Yea, Trump is the main
Didnt see your message previously.
The point i am trying to make is, even if VP debates would account to a lot, Harris win wouldn't make a large enough shift like the left media is making it sound. You can say Harris is the clear winner when majority of the people think she won. They don't.
FOr me, the good thing was we saw the pre-election campaign Harris back. The one as a prosecutor and initial Senator days everyone liked. Being from the bay area, she was eyed as a future candidate for a long time, but in recent times, her emotional type pitching which diluted her ingenuity. So Harris has helped people who would reluctantly support Biden show more faith in him, and maybe even bring a few of the undecided in the democrats camp, but wouldn't sway the Trump base. So her win isn't as big as the left makes it sound like.
Anyways, i'd say i am happy to see Harris as the VP nominee. We are all looking as Biden as a 1 term President if he wins, so the VP pick becomes even more crucial and she is a good candidate for next in line. Unlike Pence, who shouldn't be in the line.
I do not think anyone on the left made it sound like her VP win would sway convinced trump supporters in droves. Especially the actual left wasn't super thrilled by Harris' words about fracking.
In fact, the left is usually the political movement to say 'dont take this win for granted, keep fighting, dont feel safe with voter groups that are looking good now'. Nobody on the left would say Harris' win gave them a huge edge. Maybe some of her own supporters or some CNN anchors would, but that is a different story.
I do not think anyone on the left made it sound like her VP win would sway convinced trump supporters in droves. Especially the actual left wasn't super thrilled by Harris' words about fracking.
In fact, the left is usually the political movement to say 'dont take this win for granted, keep fighting, dont feel safe with voter groups that are looking good now'. Nobody on the left would say Harris' win gave them a huge edge. Maybe some of her own supporters or some CNN anchors would, but that is a different story.
Well, fracking will have to happen. Its not just jobs, its the country's economy. And fracking is used exclusively for natural gas. Its dangers are real when it comes to water more so than methane, but the adminstration can put stringent restrictions on places and methods to stop from water pollution. A lot of the fears of fracking are overblown, like even water pollution, but these can be addressed easily with regulation.
They were not right wingers. They were government hating Anarchists (a left wing movement) according to the leaders facebook posts. And he also hate Trump according to videos he made earlier. The main stream media will lie as always. Of course. I mean the election is around the corner.
Well, fracking will have to happen. Its not just jobs, its the country's economy. And fracking is used exclusively for natural gas. Its dangers are real when it comes to water more so than methane, but the adminstration can put stringent restrictions on places and methods to stop from water pollution. A lot of the fears of fracking are overblown, like even water pollution, but these can be addressed easily with regulation.
On the other hand, fracking will need to stop if we want to achieve reasonable climate goals inside the US.
The sanders fracking ban was supposed to completely ban it by 2025. The latest i heard that that the US needs to cut its emissions by 80% until 2050. Without a serious green turn, including a fracking ban, that is probably not possible.
Biden is correct however: He is not going to ban fracking. Not outright, not at once. Fracking is going to be banned when he is probably not in office anymore. But it will be and needs to be, but there also needs to be serious groundwork before that.
The world is not going to reach reasonable climate targets tho if the US keeps being interested in selling its fracking gas internationally and using it themselves. Fracking is not about clean water, but about the impact on climate change.
They were not right wingers. They were government hating Anarchists (a left wing movement) according to the leaders facebook posts. And he also hate Trump according to videos he made earlier. The main stream media will lie as always. Of course. I mean the election is around the corner.
On the other hand, fracking will need to stop if we want to achieve reasonable climate goals inside the US.
The sanders fracking ban was supposed to completely ban it by 2025. The latest i heard that that the US needs to cut its emissions by 80% until 2050. Without a serious green turn, including a fracking ban, that is probably not possible.
Biden is correct however: He is not going to ban fracking. Not outright, not at once. Fracking is going to be banned when he is probably not in office anymore. But it will be and needs to be, but there also needs to be serious groundwork before that.
The world is not going to reach reasonable climate targets tho if the US keeps being interested in selling its fracking gas internationally and using it themselves. Fracking is not about clean water, but about the impact on climate change.
I have studied environmental science at university and its not that simple. You cant fight global warming by shutting down the economy or banning fossil fuel. If you destroy the economy you will cause more harm that what you help. (Its about balancing pros and cons of different options.) And you will become a living example to the rest of the world what not to do.
You also cant forbid industry from using fossil fuel unless you also ban the import of of those same goods. Because if you do then the factories will leave the country and probably go to China which has a much dirtier energy mix. In fact China produce about 30% of all man made greenhouse gases and a widget build there will cause more enviromental damage than if it was built in the USA or Europe. And thats not even including the fossil fuel used to transport the widget from China to the US/Euro consumer.
It was for this reason that Trump left the Paris accord. Because that deal put a limit on how much green house gases the US could create, but not on how much China could make. This would result in production being sent from the US to China were it would only increase the amount of greenhouse gases being created. (Fun fact: the increase in greenhouse gases produced in China 2019 was equivalent to 7 whole of what Sweden produce! Just the increase!)
In a fit of irony, the fact that Trump has waged a trade war with China and brought factories back to the US means that he is probably the greenest president in my life time! Probably the closest thing to a green party president since Richard Nixon!
No, not really. But I also never said they were left wingers. I said they were not right wingers. It also depends on how they and you interpret the word Anarchism. When the word was invented it denominated a branch of socialism that wanted to abolish both the state and private ownership. Well, Marx also wanted that but he though that you must first get a massive government to take the property from the capitalists before you could abolish the state and make everyone equal. Anarchist skip that stage and just undermine authority figures to make everyone equal faster.
Socialism and leftism are two very different things however. Its like two different scales. You can be both a socialist and a leftist at the same time and thats the most common. But there are also movements that are rightwing and socialist. (Like national socialism "Nazism", or Fascism). But that combination is not very common nowadays. There are a few fascist countries (according to the definition) in east Asia. Like China and Singapore. But they dont call themselves that because of the bad PR.
The point is: Governor Wittmer and the MSM are accusing Trump of sending his goons at her. But that is a lie as they hate Trump and the left. People like M3J believes them as thats what they are told.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
It should be said (But I forgot) that the definition of what is considered socialism today and what was considered socialism when Anarchism was a popular movement have changed drastically.
They were not right wingers. They were government hating Anarchists (a left wing movement) according to the leaders facebook posts. And he also hate Trump according to videos he made earlier. The main stream media will lie as always. Of course. I mean the election is around the corner.
I appreciate you saying this because it definitely confirms they're right wingers. I mean, if you were ever right for once in this thread, then maybe I'd take you seriously.
Where are these videos? And you're linking me to Youtube to claim the "mainstream media" will lie, even though Youtube is full of videos from right wingers that lie? Do you understand the irony?
Yes, the election is around the corner so of course Trump and the right will lie more than usual to give the faltering Trump more chances of winning.
I appreciate you saying this because it definitely confirms they're right wingers. I mean, if you were ever right for once in this thread, then maybe I'd take you seriously.
Where are these videos? And you're linking me to Youtube to claim the "mainstream media" will lie, even though Youtube is full of videos from right wingers that lie? Do you understand the irony?
Yes, the election is around the corner so of course Trump and the right will lie more than usual to give the faltering Trump more chances of winning.
Wait? Are you really saying that you are too afraid to watch a 50 second video with the leader of the group explaining his belief. Haha! I always concidered you to be a walking stereotype! And here you go proving me right yet again!
There is an old saying of a sort that "The left and the right views each other differently. The right believes the left to be stupid while the left views the right to be evil. The right have no problems reading, analyzing and arguing with leftists. After all, what damage could it cause? You'd just laugh at their ideas while you pull them apart. But the left cant stand to view anything from the right. Because it is evil and tainted. And if you read or interact with it in any way you might become infected with evil as well. As such they avoid anything that might be of the right as much as possible so as not to become tainted. "
You M3J are like the living proof of this! This is like, what? The third or fourth time you have proclaimed in this thread that you dont read my posts. (Except you obviously do!) And now you cant even watch a 50 second video with info directly from the source.
What would I be afraid of? You're a typical right winger, but not as amusing, sadly, making up stuff and always being wrong.
The right usually does have a problem reading, analyzing, and arguing with anyone they disagree with, most of all Trump supporters. I've seen them go quiet when proven wrong or call something that was proven as fake news and cry "but liberal media!!" while using biased sites as their source. I've debunked so many right wing claims with a quick Google search. That "old saying" is definitely from a right winger who's full of shit.
No, I actually don't read your posts. You replied to me so I read this one to see what you'd say, and to no one's surprise, there's no substance. I even told you that I only read the last part of your post at someone because I saw my screenname mentioned. I've also repeated many times that Youtube videos from right wingers are often full of shit, and I know this because I've seen tons of videos from them.
I've also said that most of your posts, if not all, are usually incorrect, easily debunked, and just plain BS, so they're not worth reading, other than a glance. And if you'll read back, you'll see that YOU responded to my post, whereas I haven't responded to you in a long time, and from there I read your posts because I'm bored and have nothing to do while waiting for something.
Maybe I'll give the video a try when I come back and then fact check.
What would I be afraid of? You're a typical right winger, but not as amusing, sadly, making up stuff and always being wrong.
The right usually does have a problem reading, analyzing, and arguing with anyone they disagree with, most of all Trump supporters. I've seen them go quiet when proven wrong or call something that was proven as fake news and cry "but liberal media!!" while using biased sites as their source. I've debunked so many right wing claims with a quick Google search. That "old saying" is definitely from a right winger who's full of shit.
No, I actually don't read your posts. You replied to me so I read this one to see what you'd say, and to no one's surprise, there's no substance. I even told you that I only read the last part of your post at someone because I saw my screenname mentioned. I've also repeated many times that Youtube videos from right wingers are often full of shit, and I know this because I've seen tons of videos from them.
I've also said that most of your posts, if not all, are usually incorrect, easily debunked, and just plain BS, so they're not worth reading, other than a glance. And if you'll read back, you'll see that YOU responded to my post, whereas I haven't responded to you in a long time, and from there I read your posts because I'm bored and have nothing to do while waiting for something.
Maybe I'll give the video a try when I come back and then fact check.
OK then. So if you dont mind telling me: What is my ideology? Why do I do as I do? What motivates me as a Swedish person living in a "socialist paradise" to support Trump and defend him on this forum? You have no idea do you? Because you as a leftist cant analyze someone on the right wing. (Hint: I have more or less stated it in the last few weeks here in this thread. It should not be too hard.)
I have studied environmental science at university and its not that simple. You cant fight global warming by shutting down the economy or banning fossil fuel. If you destroy the economy you will cause more harm that what you help. (Its about balancing pros and cons of different options.) And you will become a living example to the rest of the world what not to do.
You also cant forbid industry from using fossil fuel unless you also ban the import of of those same goods. Because if you do then the factories will leave the country and probably go to China which has a much dirtier energy mix. In fact China produce about 30% of all man made greenhouse gases and a widget build there will cause more enviromental damage than if it was built in the USA or Europe. And thats not even including the fossil fuel used to transport the widget from China to the US/Euro consumer.
It was for this reason that Trump left the Paris accord. Because that deal put a limit on how much green house gases the US could create, but not on how much China could make. This would result in production being sent from the US to China were it would only increase the amount of greenhouse gases being created. (Fun fact: the increase in greenhouse gases produced in China 2019 was equivalent to 7 whole of what Sweden produce! Just the increase!)
In a fit of irony, the fact that Trump has waged a trade war with China and brought factories back to the US means that he is probably the greenest president in my life time! Probably the closest thing to a green party president since Richard Nixon!
Banning fracking does not mean you are destroying the economy. If you do a fracking ban in five years with enough investment in green techn, you certainly can catch your emission targets. Without a fracking ban, you cant.
China is ahead of the US when it comes to the green turn. Just recently, they announced far more ambitious targets than the US has. The US really is the odd one out compared to the EU and China.
China was a welcome excuse for along time. it is not anymore. China, as i said, is ahead of the Us when it comes to the green turn.
No, not really. But I also never said they were left wingers. I said they were not right wingers. It also depends on how they and you interpret the word Anarchism. When the word was invented it denominated a branch of socialism that wanted to abolish both the state and private ownership. Well, Marx also wanted that but he though that you must first get a massive government to take the property from the capitalists before you could abolish the state and make everyone equal. Anarchist skip that stage and just undermine authority figures to make everyone equal faster.
Socialism and leftism are two very different things however. Its like two different scales. You can be both a socialist and a leftist at the same time and thats the most common. But there are also movements that are rightwing and socialist. (Like national socialism "Nazism", or Fascism). But that combination is not very common nowadays. There are a few fascist countries (according to the definition) in east Asia. Like China and Singapore. But they dont call themselves that because of the bad PR.
The point is: Governor Wittmer and the MSM are accusing Trump of sending his goons at her. But that is a lie as they hate Trump and the left. People like M3J believes them as thats what they are told.
First of all: National socialists were not socialists. They took the label and the first thing they did was fighting against the actual socialists: The social democrats and the communists. Who were also the only ones who stood against them until the end while the conservatives fell in line.
Whitmer is absolutely correct when she accuses trump. You do not need to like trump to take up his conspiracy theories. The people who tried to abduct and kill her didnt do so just out of thin air. First came trumps attempt to render her as insane radical leftist.
They were not right wingers. They were government hating Anarchists (a left wing movement) according to the leaders facebook posts. And he also hate Trump according to videos he made earlier. The main stream media will lie as always. Of course. I mean the election is around the corner.
So I watched the video, and absolutely nothing disproved that he's not a right winger, just that he doesn't support Trump and is anti-government, which most right wingers are, if not all. Evita Duffy seems to be a right winger, and The Federalist, the article in the video, seems to be full of right-wing bullshit. His Facebook page alone proves that he's a right winger/far right, as he shared a FB meme of someone with a gun with a caption that says "when you've smoked 3 commies before you can legally smoke cigarettes."
You just proved my point as to why and your sources can't be taken seriously at all or are even worth a reply. I'm hoping you're a troll and not really a right winger, otherwise holy crap. I knew the video was a waste of time and more false propaganda.
Banning fracking does not mean you are destroying the economy. If you do a fracking ban in five years with enough investment in green techn, you certainly can catch your emission targets. Without a fracking ban, you cant.
China is ahead of the US when it comes to the green turn. Just recently, they announced far more ambitious targets than the US has. The US really is the odd one out compared to the EU and China.
China was a welcome excuse for along time. it is not anymore. China, as i said, is ahead of the Us when it comes to the green turn.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
First of all: National socialists were not socialists. They took the label and the first thing they did was fighting against the actual socialists: The social democrats and the communists. Who were also the only ones who stood against them until the end while the conservatives fell in line.
Whitmer is absolutely correct when she accuses trump. You do not need to like trump to take up his conspiracy theories. The people who tried to abduct and kill her didnt do so just out of thin air. First came trumps attempt to render her as insane radical leftist.
Banning fracking does not mean you are destroying the economy. If you do a fracking ban in five years with enough investment in green techn, you certainly can catch your emission targets. Without a fracking ban, you cant.
Sorry but so called green energy is not that easy. For example, a lot on countries invest in wind and sun energy. But that is usually not a good solution at scale as we have no cost efficient way of storing energy for when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine. (Except hydroelectric dams, but there are a limited number of those in the world.) This means that countries that invest in those also need regulation power from a type of power plant that can scale up and down quickly. Like gas and coal. So countries that invest in wind usually also have to invest in fossil fuel. (Or import electricity from other nations that do.)
I personally think that nuclear power would be much better than either. (And the UN climate panel agrees with me) But thats not going to happen due to Don Quixote environmentalists that does not understand science. They want to be heroes, they dont want to do morally gray calculation of costs and benefits.
China is ahead of the US when it comes to the green turn. Just recently, they announced far more ambitious targets than the US has. The US really is the odd one out compared to the EU and China.
China was a welcome excuse for along time. it is not anymore. China, as i said, is ahead of the Us when it comes to the green turn.
That said China is doing one thing that I am very exited for. They are researching on and building Thorium reactors. If they can make it work then they have created an almost infinit power source that will last almost forever while having none of the normal drawbacks of normal nuclear power plants. (No risk of meltdowns, not much dangerous waste) That is if they can make it work. The process is very complicated and have a lot of moving parts compared to a normal power plant. It is strange that the western world does not research this much. Other than Holland and Norway.
First of all: National socialists were not socialists. They took the label and the first thing they did was fighting against the actual socialists: The social democrats and the communists. Who were also the only ones who stood against them until the end while the conservatives fell in line.
Why are you to decide what is and is not a socialist? You do realize that the concept of socialism predates Marx by hundreds of years right? Just because it does not conform with him does not make it lesser. Fun fact. Adam Smith are often thought of as the father of capitalism. But his book Wealth of Nations only became popular about a hundred years after it was written. Why not earlier? Well, because his political enemies smeared him and called him a socialist! (Well he *was* a big supporter of labor unions.)
The old concept of socialism was simply an ideology were its members though that the state/society should control/own more of society and have more power and influence over people than previously. And fascism/national socialism is an ideology where the government controls both the economy and the people. So they are extremely socialist! Probably more so than Marx who saw the states power as a temporary necessity for a future stateless utopia.
The only real difference between communism and fascism is what they claim they want to use the power for. Fascists believe that the good of the group is more important than the good of the people. Communists claim that the power of the state only exist to serve the people. (But they still tend to cause mass murders and genocides at regular interval. So what is the difference in practice really?)
Whitmer is absolutely correct when she accuses trump. You do not need to like trump to take up his conspiracy theories. The people who tried to abduct and kill her didnt do so just out of thin air. First came trumps attempt to render her as insane radical leftist.
What are these conspiracy theories really? I dont hang on left wing sites so I never get to hear them. I mean she is an insane radical leftist. Thats not news. Even the supreme state court struck down her executive orders because they were tyrannical. (As well as all the courts below the supreme court) She just ignored the courts and said she would continue despite its rulings.
Also her lockdown orders were very selective. BLM rioters could go around and break and shout and gather as much as they like, but if you try to cut someones hair or go to church its fines or prison for you. Thats not reasonable, thats a political tyrant who benefits her own ideological adherents and tyrannize everyone else!
Not that lockdowns have ever proven to work. Sweden did not lock down and have less corona deaths per capita than the US does. In fact, Sweden have fewer deaths of all causes in 2020 so far than we did in 2019 at the same date! Unless you are really old or decrepit Corona is just a flu. Possibly less as 50% never gets any symptoms whatsoever. But its not about deaths, it is about generating fear so that they can control you.
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
Breaking news: Another Antifa murders another Trump supporter at a rally in Denver.
Sorry but so called green energy is not that easy. For example, a lot on countries invest in wind and sun energy. But that is usually not a good solution at scale as we have no cost efficient way of storing energy for when the wind does not blow and the sun does not shine. (Except hydroelectric dams, but there are a limited number of those in the world.) This means that countries that invest in those also need regulation power from a type of power plant that can scale up and down quickly. Like gas and coal. So countries that invest in wind usually also have to invest in fossil fuel. (Or import electricity from other nations that do.)
I personally think that nuclear power would be much better than either. (And the UN climate panel agrees with me) But thats not going to happen due to Don Quixote environmentalists that does not understand science. They want to be heroes, they dont want to do morally gray calculation of costs and benefits.
That said China is doing one thing that I am very exited for. They are researching on and building Thorium reactors. If they can make it work then they have created an almost infinit power source that will last almost forever while having none of the normal drawbacks of normal nuclear power plants. (No risk of meltdowns, not much dangerous waste) That is if they can make it work. The process is very complicated and have a lot of moving parts compared to a normal power plant. It is strange that the western world does not research this much. Other than Holland and Norway.
Nobody said it is easy, but it needs to be done. So the US should start investing, much like europe, into energy storing and new solutions for that. I do not really care about whether they solve their energy problems via via nuclear energy. It would be stupid tho, solar and wind is much cheaper on the long run, that is one reason why china does it.
In any case, the old story of 'we shouldnt do it because china doesnt' is a myth. China proceeds faster than the US does by now.
You can take the position of 'maybe china is lying', but fact remains that China pursues stricter climate goals than they agreed to before, are inside the paris agreement still while the US pulled outo f it and, under trump, took detrimental steps.
Compared to China, the US is far less committed under Trump to diminish emissions and should not be used as boogeyman to excuse US fuck ups.
Why are you to decide what is and is not a socialist? You do realize that the concept of socialism predates Marx by hundreds of years right? Just because it does not conform with him does not make it lesser. Fun fact. Adam Smith are often thought of as the father of capitalism. But his book Wealth of Nations only became popular about a hundred years after it was written. Why not earlier? Well, because his political enemies smeared him and called him a socialist! (Well he *was* a big supporter of labor unions.)
The old concept of socialism was simply an ideology were its members though that the state/society should control/own more of society and have more power and influence over people than previously. And fascism/national socialism is an ideology where the government controls both the economy and the people. So they are extremely socialist! Probably more so than Marx who saw the states power as a temporary necessity for a future stateless utopia.
The only real difference between communism and fascism is what they claim they want to use the power for. Fascists believe that the good of the group is more important than the good of the people. Communists claim that the power of the state only exist to serve the people. (But they still tend to cause mass murders and genocides at regular interval. So what is the difference in practice really?)
Because i am knowledged about it. The national socialists were not socialists, just like the german democratic republic was not democratic.
The national socialists instantly started fighting against both social democrats and communists. They never tried to engage in any kinds of alliances with them, while they played much friendlier with conservatives and monarchists.
They were also not in any international socialist groups.
One striking difference is that, even in the most authoritarian states that model themselves after socialism, like the UDSSR , you will not find them officially claiming one people is worth more than the other. Instead, they seek to make humans independent from their ethnicity. That is the exact opposite of what a national socialist (aka fascist) would do. The social democrats and communists wanted germany to be part of a braoder landscape of countries that have a common goal of building a fair society.
The national socialists had quite a different idea about how Europe should look after they won. BEcause they thought Aryans were the most valuable people and some ethnicities should die, other should serve them.
Saying they are socialist because it is in their name and because they liked to nominally (but not actually) put the market under control of 'the people' (aka the führer) is just as absurd as calling the GDR democratic just because they had mock elections and it was in their name.
What are these conspiracy theories really? I dont hang on left wing sites so I never get to hear them. I mean she is an insane radical leftist. Thats not news. Even the supreme state court struck down her executive orders because they were tyrannical. (As well as all the courts below the supreme court) She just ignored the courts and said she would continue despite its rulings.
My favorite thing is how the right whine about the left calling their racist ideas or views racist because "differing opinions," but they'll call any idea they don't agree with or like socialist or communist even when when it's far from either.
My favorite thing is how the right whine about the left calling their racist ideas or views racist because "differing opinions," but they'll call any idea they don't agree with or like socialist or communist even when when it's far from either.
Of course. And obviously people who write meant hings on twitter are fascists while the proud boys never attack first!
--- Double Post Merged, , Original Post Date: ---
By now Biden's lead is so decisive that even a polling error as in 2016 in favor of Trump would not take the election away from him.
This comes in the wake of the Trump campaign being out of money and having to pull all kinds of ads in important swing states and democratic senators winning the funding war.
I did a mistake in 2016 thinking the election was safer than it was, but I am inclined to still say that it is looking very, very good for democrats right now. Much brighter than 2016 with a momentum that might give them even more of an edge.
With the second debate cancelled, Trump really has only one last chance to turn that around unless something serious happens.His meddling with the mail ballots was partially repelled by court orders, too. A lot of democrats have already voted, while the republican turnout on election day is in question.
I am also inclined to say that this election is ACTUALLY one of the most important ones both globally and inside the US because it is going to shape the country for a longer period of time than usually.
If republicans win this time, they can extent their lead over the supreme court to insurmountable levels, they can gerrymander so much that it will be hard for democrats to ever regain the senate and they can keep, as trump did, installing so many judges and other appointees statewide that even a possible democratic president would have a hard time fighting against the pushback all these installations provide.
If democrats win however, it is similarly unlikely that republicans will regain the senate in the next twelve years (because mostly republican seats will be contested in 4 years) and democrats can rebalance a lot of the gerrymandering that has happened. They will have all 3 chambers of government for at least 4, probably 8 years (the senate and house will be completely safe if they win this time) and they have a good chance to outweight the supreme court either by waiting or by trying to enlarge it.
They also have chances to make puerto rico and DC into states to further skew the senate their way.
But that also bears dangers. both sides are absolutely not willing to lose as they know what is on the table. Losing the election is one thing. Thinking that you will lose all subsequent elections because the other side can enact policies that make it impossible for you to win is another.
www.dailydot.com