Qwiss! wrote:
Claudius wrote:

Not sure it’s a Republican plan. It’s a Trump thing. Need to separate the two.
He’s throwing a million different things at trying to undermine the vote. I don’t see him as any different to any developing country despot. If he sees the opportunity on election night and he has any kind of delegate lead, he will call the election and declare himself winner. Any votes that arrive thereafter will be deemed fraudulent. He’s keeping his solution space open.

I think most of that is likely but I don't think he is slowing the USPS right now. Thats the sort of conspiracy you'd find very hard to contain.

Either way this next election is going to be an absolute clusterfuck. I can see Trump rejecting any loss and I can see people taking to the streets if he wins.

The postmaster general that trump recently hired is one of his cronies, and has engaged in suspicious operational changes that have lead to the slow downs. Its not beypnd the realms to posit that trump has sent him in to take a hatchet to the place

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/08/07/postal-service-investigation-dejoy/

Warren, VP nominee, Obama will be the string to watch. The VP nominee better have her shit together sandwiched between those two hard hitters.

Kamala Harris it is.

This'll crash and burn again.

Really good pick. Now time to focus on sewing up the election. Can’t lose to a man who thought the Spanish flu of ‘1917’ ended WW2.

It'll be Trump by landslide. Probably better this way too, Biden win means 100% no change for the Democrats (as opposed to 99.9999% chance) and probably a bigger chance for more wars in the rest of the world. Trump is a vile piece of shit but he serves a purpose in tearing down the window dressing around the US.

There’s no way more Trump is a good thing for the US or the rest of the world.

Trump is pretty behind on the polls though? I think Biden will probably win and change nothing like you said.

No politician is going to change things in the US. Even Sanders would have done fuck all in the grand scheme of things. Nothing will change until the people change.

The people do want change, they don't have many outlets and are voting the wrong way but they recognise the need for change far more than Washington wants to admit.

Mirth wrote:

The people do want change, they don't have many outlets and are voting the wrong way but they recognise the need for change far more than Washington wants to admit.

This is contradictory. The people want change. The people are voting the wrong way.

It's the electorate that needs to change. They're the only ones with any power to change things, not Sanders, Trump or anyone else.

Maybe in a generation or two that will happen, I have some hope in youth. But right now a huge chunk of society is far too selfish, ignorant, stupid and downright evil to enable anyone who actually wants to bring about change.

I said it would be Kamala to everyone who asked, but it's still no less hilarious.

Claudius wrote:
Mirth wrote:

The people do want change, they don't have many outlets and are voting the wrong way but they recognise the need for change far more than Washington wants to admit.

This is contradictory. The people want change. The people are voting the wrong way.

The people want change and are given two options that are actively working to make sure change doesn't happen. Only thing that is a contradiction is a two-party system where both sides serve the same elite class.

Klaus wrote:
Claudius wrote:

This is contradictory. The people want change. The people are voting the wrong way.

The people want change and are given two options that are actively working to make sure change doesn't happen.

Do you think the large majority of those people are unhappy with their options or would vote in a 3rd candidate who did offer change beyond campaign slogans?

I don't. 

Klaus wrote:
Claudius wrote:

This is contradictory. The people want change. The people are voting the wrong way.

The people want change and are given two options that are actively working to make sure change doesn't happen. Only thing that is a contradiction is a two-party system where both sides serve the same elite class.

Pretty much this - it's a choice between 'more of the same' vs 'something different'. Trump's had abysmal approval ratings since he took office, it's not like the country (aside from the usual nutjobs) are massively in love with him.

goon wrote:
Klaus wrote:

The people want change and are given two options that are actively working to make sure change doesn't happen.

Do you think the large majority of those people are unhappy with their options or would vote in a 3rd candidate who did offer change beyond campaign slogans?

I don't. 

If the third party candidate had an equal opportunity on the ballot I reckon a lot of people would do it, but everyone knows that voting third party in a two-party system is just wasting a vote. The lack of real choice in politics is also how you end up with a population of non-voters that is almost as big as the population of actual voters. Sure voters are disillusioned, but so are the people who don't vote at all. I think the last American election had a turnout around 55 percent right? And out of those voters, 46 percent ended up deciding the election. Which means that no more than a quarter of the population decided who should be in power.

It's by design as well. If you're a corrupt party that serves only special interests, you'd want to exclude as many as possible to better manage the electorate.

Dems on the ground go nuts for voter turnout, but their banking lists are obviously geared towards specific demographics, strategically and cynically by state and by district.

Coombs wrote:

It's by design as well. If you're a corrupt party that serves only special interests, you'd want to exclude as many as possible to better manage the electorate.

Exactly. I think the way the democrats have treated Bernie illustrates perfectly how afraid they are of the working class.