/townhall/ - Townhall

The way I see it, no matter the outcome of this election, violence is guaranteed.
Personally, if all things are fair, I think Trump will win. I have my own doubts whether or not that will be the case, but, nonetheless, if he does, mass unrest is guaranteed.
As for what I am doing, I have my rifle, I have ammo, my home is in a good enough spot, I am not too worried personally.
My local area is relatively disconnected from world politics anyway. Things tend to be a little more relaxed here.
If things go ploin shaped, I think this area will be fine, essentially just on its own for local governing.

I'm fatalistic. If there's going to be a civil war in America, then all of the Jews, LGBT people, Muslims, disabled people, and others are getting the "day of the rope" treatment from the far right Trumpists. That includes me. I accept this possible destiny.

I strongly disagree that there's going to be a civil war, though. The most likely outcome is that Biden wins and Trump goes quietly. There's nothing in Trump's character that gives him the moral strength of purpose to stay in office. He's nothing if not a mentally ill, narcissistic coward.

It's also possible that Biden wins the popular vote but loses in the Electoral College (there's no chance in hell Trump gets through 2020 winning the popular vote, so let's not talk about that hypothetical). There will be social protest. But since Biden is a man of dignity and honor, he will do the right thing and concede. Trumpism will go on as usual, without anything activity changes. Trump remains Trump. The country stays as poisoned by him as it is. Status quo.

>>6722
Thing is, trump won last time. The people who don't like him now didn't like him then, and he's picked up a lot of support since then. Based on that, seems his chances are pretty good. Biden doesn't have the charisma trump has, either, and i don't think he's any stronger a candidate than Hilary Clinton.

>>6755
counter point

during the 2016 election, there was a lot of people that were turned off by Hillary for various reasons, especially political history. whereas trump was somebody new and not a career polititian, so a lot of people were willing to give him a chance, if nothing more than to just give him a shot.

well 4 years goes by and he's done a lot to make people dislike him, including poor policy decision, exacerbating racist ideologies, and failing to uphold campaign promises. While his supporters probably will still vote for him, i imagine that he's thouroughly quashed his chances with independents and centrists.

Now Biden isn't charismatic and a lot of peoples last choice on the ballot, but he is somebody who has had expertise in govenment, and is associated with Obama whom a lot of people liked or were at least tolerant of. So the prospect of moderates and centrists to view Biden as being a safer choice, and a return to normalcy after multiple years of unrest during the trump presidency is promising.

barring the possibility of voter suppression and intervention, i can see Biden winning on the backs of many moderates who have buyers remorse from voting for Trump. The issue is that trump is doing all he can to ensure his victory, so i expect more shenanigans from here on out

the problem for him is that he has no subtlety or tact in his tactics. people are constantly aware of what he is doing because he more or less tells people in advance, and even flaunts it. This works for his supporters cause it shows his devil may care attitude, but it allows other people to prepare and report on it. it makes people aware of how much is at stake, and how fragile their situation is. if trump was more subtle and smart about his tactics, i thouroughly believe he could have anything he wanted. but as it is, he is causing people that don't like him and those who fear him to prepare and be on guard.

i can see things going either way, with either a trump win or a biden win. If i had to put my money on anything, it would be Biden because moderate and independent voters have had their taste of trump, and probably seek stability

>>6757
I think he's also done a lot to make people like him, personally. Moreover; Biden seems to have the same kind of baggage of Hillary.
And of course, I think most people consider the ongoing instability to be something coming from the left, given the whole BLM riots and all.

I'd be really surprised if Trump loses, personally. Seems he's got it pretty well in the bag.

>>6757
> he's done a lot to make people dislike him
Yup, that's me for sure.  I really hate Trump.  Really the only reason I might not vote for Biden is Biden's horrible stance on 2A and Biden's potential Supreme Court nominees (especially given the Senate might flip to the Dems too).  If I had to vote today, I'd probably vote for Jo Jorgensen.  

>>6758
>I'd be really surprised if Trump loses, personally.
What odds would you give Trump of winning?  Prediction markets show Biden slightly more likely to win.
https://www.predictit.org/markets/detail/3698/Who-will-win-the-2020-US-presidential-election
https://www.electionbettingodds.com/

>>6759
In an honest, no sketchy business election? Two to one.
Given the likely sketchy business, probably more even odds than that, though.

Incidentally, I'm surprised, going off of that, more people haven't bet on Kamala. I really wouldn't be surprised if Biden was suddenly pulled from the thing citing health concerns, with her as the main candidate.
But, maybe I'm just being pessimistic.

>>6760
> I'm surprised, going off of that, more people haven't bet on Kamala. I really wouldn't be surprised if Biden was suddenly pulled from the thing citing health concerns, with her as the main candidate.
I think it might be too late to officially add her to the ballot in most states.  Even if Biden croaks before the election, people might still have to vote for him to get Kamala into office.  The PredictIt rules are set up so just the popular vote in each state matters -- faithless electors and electors voting for Kamala instead of a dead Biden don't matter for the outcome of that contract.

>>6718
Trump has been doing a pretty incompetent job of controlling the unrest as it is.

>>6763
Makes sense that he might not want to, actulally. Look where the riots are taking place, large blue cities, trumps weakest area. Are burning cities going to be able to run polls properly? No! It's disruptive to the voting process, which gives trump an advantage in this circumstance, i think.

>>6764
>Are burning cities going to be able to run polls properly? No! It's disruptive to the voting process
I dunno, I think most people in those areas would just vote by the mail.

But I think the riots do help Trump in that the public sees the riots as being associated with the Democrats, so negative feelings about the riots might spill over to negative feelings about the Democratic Party in general.

>What are your predictions?
We won't know the outcome of the election on election night thanks to mail in ballots and the manner in which different states regulate counts.  Mass media and social media will suppress any news favorable to Trump while simultaneously allowing the Dems to claim victory.  Mainstream social media has explicitly stated it will ban Trump, specifically, from claiming victory, but not the reverse.  Massive voter fraud in mail-in ballots, as has already been demonstrated in smaller electoral races, will call the entire vote into question.  Meanwhile, armed leftist insurrectionists will destroy anything they can, regardless of the vote, especially businesses owned by the very minorities they purport to champion.  Democrat cities will burn, as the rest of America looks on shaking its head.  The matter of the vote will pass to the Supreme Court.  If only legitimate votes are counted, I predict a Trump victory, and with any luck, California, Washington, and Oregon f*** off into their own hippie commune nation which the rest of the USA enthusiastically supports.  Why on earth would anyone else bother fighting a war to keep them in the USA?  If all questionable votes are counted, I predict that Biden will assume office as Pedophile in Chief, with the Dem cities burning regardless, because Antifa gonna Antifa.

>>6722
White supremacist's "day of the rope" fantasy isn't really feesible, because it requires them to not only slaughter people of color, homosexuals, and people of different religions, but also any white people who would protest against this. They are vastly outnumbered.

Also, you underestimate how much damage a second Trump term could do. We'd be lucky if "things stay as poisoned as they are now." But this a Trump who knows he can collude with foreign powers and get away with it, will have taken control of the supreme courts and is OK with letting people in "blue states" die of a deadly virus.

>>6802
>Trump ... will have taken control of the supreme court
Trump's judicial nominees are quite independent; they aren't cronies loyal to him.  There are already cases in which they have ruled against the Trump administration.

>>6815
Maybe not loyal to him, but loyal to the Republican party and it's interests.

>>6815
Trump wants hacks and cronies who just blindly obey his will. That he's failed miserably in doing so with Gorsch and Kavanaugh doesn't mean that he hasn't wanted it.

>>6816
>Maybe not loyal to him, but loyal to the Republican party and it's interests.
They're not loyal to the party, although they're probably biased somewhat toward it and its interests.  The vast majority of federal judges (including Trump appointees) do their best to impartially decide the cases before them.  It is true that they sometimes fail and let their bias seep through and influence their rulings, but that is a far cry from loyalty to a party's interests.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-46294734

>>6818
Trump's pool of potential nominees is basically spoon-fed to him by the Federalist Society.  Republicans don't want another Souter, and in practice this means that they'll accept only a principled conservative approved by the Federalist Society.

>>6802
The current CDC numbers seem to suggest that Covid was massively overblown, and that the lockdown did little to help that given nations that did not lock down had comparable rates.
It certainly does not seem an appropriate response to massively curtail civic freedoms [selectively, of course, as if you're protesting 'systemic racism' or are a megacorporation, you're fine] not to mention the massive loss of economic infrastructure and production as numerous businesses are shut down, permanently, due to this.
But I digress; Trump's response was to leave it to those states. Thus it rather doesn't seem to make any sense to blame his response for what blue states choose to do.

And, of course, the foreign powers thing seems to be nothing but conspiracy theory and paranoid delusions at this point, anyway...

>>6824
Ironically, it seems if you want hacks and cronies who blindly follow party lines, you look at democrat judges.

>>6834
>>6835
Whooooooooo, boy, there's so much post-truth alternative facts here in what you said that I'm not sure where to begin to debunk things.

I guess I'll start with:
>"And, of course, the foreign powers thing seems to be nothing but conspiracy theory and paranoid delusions at this point, anyway"


See, at the very least, this: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/09/17/fbi-director-russia-election-meddling-416839

And then this: https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2020/09/trump-lawyer-rudy-giuliani-worked-with-an-active-russian-agent-to-discredit-joe-biden/

And it really goes on.

>>6837
Your first link is just one guy's opinions, and moreover not him suggesting collusion.
He's saying Russia is doing what quite literally every other nation, including the United States, does.
Hardly justification for a four year witchhunt that hasn't seem to have managed to produce a drop of evidence I've seen thus far.

Your 2nd link is an accusation that some Ukranian parliament member is a Russian spy, which I have to say I find myself looking on with skepticism. Maybe it's because of how often that label had been thrown around during the last 4 years, again without any evidence seeming to show itself.
Moreover, this article is of questionable quality I have to say. If they're saying that the accusation of impropriety Biden is a "baseless allegation", it rather reveals some significant bias.

I think anyone with a neutral eye can say that there is at least enough evidence in regards to Biden and his son to say it's hardly "baseless".
Intentional? Abnormal? Worthy of action? Those are different questions. But, I think anyone can see the potential for a conflict of interest when you're withholding millions of dollars until a nation fires the guy investigating your son.

>>6718
What are your predictions?

Trump wins.  Political drama.

>Are you worried about massive amounts of violence, potentially up to the level of a civil war?

Not really.  Maybe I should be.  I've heard smart people saying they are thinking about an exit strategy from America if things get bad.  (But isn't politics always like this?)

>Are you prepared for such an eventuality?

Prepared for civil war?  No.  I understand about respecting states but in civil war the target of respect is poorly defined.  I have been trained for war a bit, but it didn't take very well.  I'm not much of a fighter.