Politics/Slapfights - Ancient history to modern day!

[Sinekein]

I am curious as to whether Trump really wants to make the last 50 days of the campaign about a SCOTUS seat. And I am even more curious as to whether other GOP candidates up for reelection in Senate want to do that, considering many of them were so adamantly against Obama picking one in the last year of his mandate. There is endless footage of Mitch McConnell and others arguing that Justice Scalia's death was too close from the election for a hearing to take place, and he died in February of 2016, while Ginsburg passed away in September of 2020.

So on one hand, if they push forward at an accelerated pace to get a third Trump nominee, some of them will have to flip-flop and it is going to be very easy to use that to paint them as unreliable, which might tip moderates against them (especially those that are in close races). And on the other hand, partisan voters who don't care about flip-flopping as long as it puts conservative judges in the SCOTUS might get mad if they are shown not to be determined enough to get a hearing before January.

Speaking of, since I am not aware of how it works, I know that the next president will take his oath in January, but is it the same with the Senate? Is the current one in place until January 2021, or are Senators taking their seats as soon as they are getting elected in November?

In any event, if Trump does not win, the US might be in for the most insane transition period of their history. Oh, and if somehow Trump wins but the GOP loses the Senate? If Trump loses but the GOP holds on to the Senate?

[SciFlyBoy]

New Senate starts January 3rd, I believe.

Question about US law, if anyone knows, if Biden wins the election but dies from Covid before he's inaugurated, does Kamala become the next president, or do we have to run another election because she wasn't nominated or elected as president and Biden wasn't even sworn in yet, there fore he doesn't even hold the seat yet?

I'm saying because if it's on the books that it doesn't work that way it'll be interesting to see how the democrats would say the the Reps can't change the rules to vote in a judge but how they're free to change the rules to vote in the vice pres. Don't know what the rules are, so I'll look it up.

I'm bringing it up because twice this week the Biden camp referred to their campaign as the Harris/Biden ticket and the Harris administration with Biden as president. Biden even spoke using 'Harris/Biden and I'm sure he wasn't aware of it'. I wonder how important his health is right now as opposed to after the election if he wins.

Thoughts?

[SciFlyBoy]

Article about the 20th amendment. States vice-president elect should become next president-elect. Plus, depending on whether the president elect dies before the electorate counts their votes whether the states are bound to their previous electorate votes or recast for a not dead candidate.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... er-part-1/

[NCLanceman]

Question about US law, if anyone knows, if Biden wins the election but dies from Covid before he's inaugurated, does Kamala become the next president, or do we have to run another election because she wasn't nominated or elected as president and Biden wasn't even sworn in yet, there fore he doesn't even hold the seat yet?

That's how the Twentieth Amendment works, yes. Also there's prescident in the form of William Henry Harrison's presidency, the ninth President of the United States who caught pneumonia giving the inauguration speech and lasted a whole thirty days before his Vice President John Tyler became the President of the United States. If Biden won the election, then Kamala Harris would indeed become the President, otherwise you'd be overturning an election. And if anyone who votes Biden hasn't seriously considered Kamala Harris being the President of the United States, they're flatly not paying attention.

[Alienmorph]

So TikTok is gonna survive. How? Well, Walmart and a bunch of other american companies bought a crapton of its stocks and pretty much took over the company. That way we get to be spied by western multinationals instead than the PCC. Assuming they just don't sell to China the data anyway.

Yaaay.

[NCLanceman]

So TikTok is gonna survive. How? Well, Walmart and a bunch of other american companies bought a crapton of its stocks and pretty much took over the company. That way we get to be spied by western multinationals instead than the PCC. Assuming they just don't sell to China the data anyway.

Yaaay.

Well, damn. I didn't have a horse in this race one way or the other, but some zoomer I was talking to at work said "Vines were the good ol' days" and I wanted Tiktok to burn in hell just for that.

The generational divide is real, kids.

[SciFlyBoy]

I think the President and Senate are perfectly fine appointing a judge right before the election. Were it the other way around and the Dems had the presidency and Senate then I'm sure they'd be doing the same thing.

Now I read an article saying that if the election is a draw then the SCOTUS comes in to determine the winner, as with Bush v Gore. So I can see why it's being talked about that Trump is packing the SC in his favor. But I don't think that'll be the case. There are plenty of times in our history when the SC did the opposite of their party affiliates.

[Mazder]

I think the President and Senate are perfectly fine appointing a judge right before the election. Were it the other way around and the Dems had the presidency and Senate then I'm sure they'd be doing the same thing.

Now I read an article saying that if the election is a draw then the SCOTUS comes in to determine the winner, as with Bush v Gore. So I can see why it's being talked about that Trump is packing the SC in his favor. But I don't think that'll be the case. There are plenty of times in our history when the SC did the opposite of their party affiliates.

Didn't they try to do that in 2016 and everyone basically agreed because it was an election year that it should be done after the election?
Back when Obama was president and Trump was to be elected?

And wasn't that discussed in the early couple of months of that year, instead of the last few as in this case?

I dunno, if the same reason it's not done then doesn't apply now then the gaming of the system is pretty damned blatant IMO.

[Sinekein]

As it turns out, the reason the Reps blocked Obama's proposal for the SCOTUS had nothing to do with history or tradition as it was claimed - they just did it because they could. McConnell and Graham already admitted to it.

And some Democrats have already mentioned that if they win the elections, they might just add more judges to the court, because apparently that is a possibility - they could decide that now there are 13 judges and, what a coincidence, Biden gets to nominate the last 4.

Which would open Pandora's box regarding manipulation of the institutions in a partisan way. And if the Republicans complain, they have to be ready to see McConnell and Graham's 2016 speeches regarding Merrick Garland's hearings being shown time and time again. Democrat voters tend to care more about having the moral high ground, but after what the reps are pulling, it is unlikely they will hold it against Dem politicians if they use some super low strategies themselves.

It is a bit worrying to see how much U.S. politics are deteriorating, but, considering their system and current government, it is not entirely unexpected either.

[Vol]

I approach religion through a Jungian Social Lens, basically that much of what is said in religious texts isn't necessarily meant to be taken literally but a lot of the time is metaphor as a means of conveying a message for personal improvement and/or addressing humans instinctual needs. I'd advise anyone to read some of Jungs works on the matter because they're particularly interesting even if you don't buy into them, and cover some of the questions you've just raised: For example universal experiences, or what Jung calls the Collective Unconscious and how a lot of commonality of experiences re: religion across numerous people and societies can be attributed to a part of the subconscious that is genetically inherited

That would be the simplest way to reconcile any sort of personal spirituality with the immense baggage of any particular faith system. I never accepted claims that written works must be entirely literal or metaphorical, or at least clearly delineated, because that's simply not how humans write. Putting aside divine inspiration, the works we have now are the results of human minds and human minds over however many years. And today, when we write, even in non-fiction, we still intersperse the literal and metaphorical to make the point. Humans learn better from stories that relate to their experiences than pure assertions of fact.

I'm looking at faith from the range of deism, which is the "bare minimum" for what I personally consider a reasonable position given our observation of reality and the logical systems we function under, and animism, which is what I would consider the most primitive faith we experience. It appears evident, though the extremely early state of neuroscience may prove otherwise, that humans are naturally religious to one extent or another. Possibly as a survival technique, ascribing agency to phenomenon as an extension of our intelligence and yada yada, possibly because we've been "touched" or "guided" for a higher purpose than material existence. Obviously genetics would play a role in either case, as our bodies and brains (I'm a dualist on the topic of mind) demonstrably are part of a materialist system, and so innate traits that transcend time and culture, in the lack of empirical evidence, would strongly suggest we're inherently religious. What I find compelling is that aforementioned gradient, because it appears to me, that while we can progressively explain away the primitive faiths, as we march towards deism, we hit a cognitive wall on our biological ability to be definitive. And then if we mount that wall, through future breakthroughs in neuroscience or physics or whatever, a bigger wall would dwell behind it.

I do not think the ability to prove or disprove is that important in the success of religions or the reason they remained to this day. Hinduism is a polytheism that is still going strong despite featuring people with six arms or elephant heads. No one has ever found the Kraken, or Yggdrasil, or Odin's palace, yet Nordic mythology is all but gone now. And you had monotheisms or polytheisms that looked very "logical" in comparison that disappeared over time too.

Having done a great deal of reading on many topics related to this since I posted my message, you're correct here. From gnostic atheists to Jews to Buddhist monks to one fellow who claims he earnestly believes Nordic mythology is real, the rationality or proof really only appears to a relatively minuscule amount of academically minded people. That said, listening to apologetic debates, looking into seemingly impossible claims that still have not been verified despite the means to, historicity, logic, the limits of empirical science now and in abstract, cultural contexts, leads to some fascinating places.

If you cannot "prove" religions, looking at history it is often rather easy to understand why they succeeded or disappeared. More often than not, they don't appear in a vacuum, but to accompany an evolution in a society. It might look silly for Mayans to worship the sun so much, but they were the civilization that started growing maize, a crop that needs more sun than others. Presumably, years with shitty weather and little sun might have caused starvations that could not truly be explained at that time, hence a need for a sun figure. In Europe, there was no such need because the climate is more temperate, and it was harder to tie a particular weather to good or bad crops.

This something I found interesting. Anatomically modern man has been around for 100k-200k years, roughly. Anatomically modern behavior only starts showing up about 50k years ago. Obviously written records do not exist before a certain point only a few thousand years ago, but what little we have very clearly indicates man was not intellectually inferior to us now (in broad strokes). They simply had no other explanations, immense social pressure to conform, and an understanding of causality enough to know the sun made the corn grow. The priests were right way more often than not, so if they were wrong, what else is there? The luxury and leisure to pontificate on alternatives did not exist for people not personally invested in the power structure, much less the will to end up with your heart carved out over the matter.

That explains the animist->polytheist paradigm, where the gods were supposed to be hanging around and directly interfering in every day life. Survival to cultural habit to organized faith. If we took a group of adults and lampooned them somewhere, then specifically wiped out all knowledge they have that they wouldn't have 50,000 years ago, assuming they survived, eventually they'd end up with some sort of formalized religion based on abstract extensions of survival. Where it becomes complicated is when we talk about revelation, where it is not at all about daily survival or gods that directly fiddle with you for doing good or evil (barring specific, unique instances). Because you can argue that it is an evolution of our cultures, as the success over the immediate survival requirements allowed for higher-order philosophy and ideas to grow, but also that revelation would've been completely lost on populations still living as hunter-gatherers, or struggling with agriculture, and so on. It doesn't necessarily impugn the origin of these later faiths to show they sprung up in the circumstances they did, like it goes with animism. That both "high" and "low" faiths still exist and mingle in the same societies is just plain fun.

Muslims and Jews cannot eat pork, but Islam aired in very hot and dry countries in which pigs in general are not native. Since they are animals that tend to be rather fragile of health (unlike cows for example, which can withstand basically the apocalypse) and tend to carry diseases or parasites that can easily be passed on humans, that particular meat being forbidden can be explained as a health concern first, even if it is written in the holy book without giving a clue (or with a mythological one, I don't know about either).

Rather paternal, isn't it? "Don't eat this potentially harmful meat source, for reasons that you won't fully understand for centuries, or you're a bad person." Though that begs the question of why a divine command was necessary, since people would clearly be able to tell pigs were not suited for the Middle East, and that they were infested, and that eating them made you sick. We've always been as intelligent as we are now, after all. "These beasts don't do well here and carry parasites and diseases that kill us" is entirely sufficient explanation, even if people don't listen (fugu, raw milk).

That seemed to be a theme in what little of the Old Testament I learned of. Clear commandments to behave a certain way, humans fucked up, God punished directly or indirectly, repeat until Jesus and the Pharisee.

Bottom line: I don't think deniability matters. It has been "scientifically proven" that the Bible's timeline does not work, and it was not enough to cancel all christianism. Religions are there to fill for the things science cannot explain, and even if it is progressing real fast these days, it still cannot understand everything. But I am confident we will get closer and closer, even if "the absolute truth" can not be reached.

Yeah, I spent most of my time reading and listening to apologetics for that reason. My takeaway from all of it was that while we physically live in a materialist reality, there is a large area for immaterial truths, not the least of which is the necessary existence of a creator force that we'd call God. Beyond that, becomes a bit harder. The physicalist explanation that everything is physical, there is no mind, everything we think or do is part of a long chain of causality from the moment of the Big Bang, and the scientist of the gaps will eventually explain everything, but none of it matters because consciousness is an emergent illusion of a sufficiently advanced brain, does not inspire confidence, given what experience in our first-person internal narratives. But neuroscience has barely even begun to scratch the surface of mind and free will, which is integral to the conversation.

My concern here is that because of an observable, dogmatic adherence to the secular ideals, evidence to the contrary will be discarded for not inherently fitting the mold. Such as if during a rigorous, controlled, unimpeachable test of near death experiences, the person who died was shown to have no brain activity whatsoever, but when revived, was able to provide specific information about an event they could not possibly have known about before, during, or after their revival. Somehow, their mind had left the body, conscious, learned something new that was factually true, then returned to life with the memory of it. If that happened, and it happened only once because of the immense difficulties in such a study, I strongly suspect it would do very little to convince atheists of a soul, or materialists of the immaterial, or a religious sort who doesn't believe in the soul that their faith is wrong. It's frustrating, that.

[Mobius_118]

I went Army for two weeks, and I see trump not 130 miles away in Bemidji, Ruth Bader Ginsberg passes away, and all the hypocrite GOP leaders trying to ram a new Supreme Court Justice despite the debacle in 2016. Oh, and Breonna Taylors' murderers got punished for the shots they missed.

How eventful. And predictable.

[TTTX]

I went Army for two weeks, and I see trump not 130 miles away in Bemidji, Ruth Bader Ginsberg passes away, and all the hypocrite GOP leaders trying to ram a new Supreme Court Justice despite the debacle in 2016. Oh, and Breonna Taylors' murderers got punished for the shots they missed.

How eventful. And predictable.

well USA is the land of crazy.

[Mobius_118]

well USA is the land of crazy.

I don't disagree.

Trump's "suckers and losers" comment was enough for a lot of my Soldiers to abandon his ass, but there's decades of shit trump has done that should alienate everyone.

[TTTX]

I don't disagree.

Trump's "suckers and losers" comment was enough for a lot of my Soldiers to abandon his ass, but there's decades of shit trump has done that should alienate everyone.

Trump is hardly the worst when it comes to why USA is the land of crazy, the health care system, school shootings, inequality between various people etc.

and most of it have been problems longer then Trump has been a live.

[Mobius_118]

Sure, however it's been made abundantly worse because of his actions, inactions, and encouragement of those influenced by him to be the biggest, nastiest, dirtbaggiest pieces of shit they can be.

Before when Barack Obama was President, before they were trump supporters these people were still pushing the shitbag agenda. Always have, always will. It's like the thought of equity and not being a fucking asshole offends them.

At least now they're easier to identify. Grown ass men and women who follow the mental equivalent of a 5 year old, willing to shoot people just trying to live. It's fucking embarrassing.

[TheodoricFriede]

And some Democrats have already mentioned that if they win the elections, they might just add more judges to the court, because apparently that is a possibility - they could decide that now there are 13 judges and, what a coincidence, Biden gets to nominate the last 4.

Aside from being WILDLY unpopular with Republicans, the Supreme Court, Independents, Joe Biden, Bernie Sanders, The late Ruth Ginsburg, and SANE Democrats, court packing could only happen if the democrats had a super-majority (which will NEVER happen in American politics again) to get rid of the filibuster.

And the Republicans could filibuster to stop them from getting rid of the filibuster, because the filibuster wouldnt be gone yet.

Packing the courts would be nearly impossible.

[TTTX]

Sure, however it's been made abundantly worse because of his actions, inactions, and encouragement of those influenced by him to be the biggest, nastiest, dirtbaggiest pieces of shit they can be.

Before when Barack Obama was President, before they were trump supporters these people were still pushing the shitbag agenda. Always have, always will. It's like the thought of equity and not being a fucking asshole offends them.

At least now they're easier to identify. Grown ass men and women who follow the mental equivalent of a 5 year old, willing to shoot people just trying to live. It's fucking embarrassing.

Pretty sure that would have happen at some point anyway regardless of Trump, as there was already push back against some extreme left people and corporations who had/have well used certain views to silence certain people for disagreeing (and yeah the extreme right does this too, I know) by screaming bloody murder at even the slightest disagreement, putting out crappy products and claim diversity, etc, etc.

Something was going to give sooner or later, we are just seeing results of what was started close to a decade ago and I'm going to be honest ,both sides have enough blame to go around, however blaming it all on Trump seems just dumb to me, yeah he is an idiot, but jesus the Left lost their shit when he won and acted like a 5 year who is a sore loser for years and kept trying to cry wolf to the point now no one cares anymore outside of the extremes elements.

and I'm going to be completely honest the only way for Trump to win again is basically if the Left screw up again, like they did last time.

[Vol]

Packing the court is saber-rattling for the left, fear-mongering for the right. It won't ever happen, because it would be the actual end of the Union. The GOP will likely never have the numbers to do it, while the Democrats have the demographic replacements in their favor, barring a political shift, so if anyone ever could, it would be them. Though I suspect the decline of the white population will stabilize at some minority amount, as the incentives to move here diminish, and the replacement Americans in turn fall to sub-replacement levels too. But to effectively destroy the Judicial branch in a partisan power play would be ridiculous, no sane politicians would go along with it unless "total victory" was at hand anyway.

[Sinekein]

I figure that yes, it's seen as something of a nuclear option.

But one of the things with the nuclear option, is that when you back down you still have strong options on your side, but instead of being "extreme", now they're just rather moderate compared to "the worst", ie packing the court.

Like a proposal to put a time limit on SCOTUS judges, by giving them 10 years mandates instead of "for-life" ones. Or instead, adding one or two new states to the Union because after all, it has happened before it's not like the number of 50 is set in stone, and would you look at it there's D.C. who hasn't got Senators yet (Democrats might even justify it because the more demography evolves, the more it's favorable to the GOP in the Senate).

And those are the only ones I've seen, I assume there is a ton of shady plots that they could do were they to hold the Congress - like gerrymandering the crap out of some balanced states because demographics are often swinging in their favor to increase their chances in future elections.

The main difference is that a couple of years ago, moves like that were seen unfavorably by many Democrat voters who wanted their politicians to play fair, they wanted to be "the good ones". I doubt that it will still be the case if Trump manages to find a replacement to Ginsburg in less than a month after McConnell blocked Obama for 8. Even moreso if somehow the hearings take it after the election and Barret is named by a lame duck president & Senate, that would just be an open call for the Dems to play super dirty.

I think that it's going to be one of the biggest takeouts of the Trump presidency: I think he's removing the moral barriers Dem voters had on gaming the system. Now there's a chance that U.S. Politics are going to devolve into an all-out game of who's best at bending the rules, and I don't think the end result is going to be pretty.

[Mobius_118]

And the whole fucking time I'll get ping-ponged around and probably shot at by the dumbfuck conservatives and failed conservative wannabe libertarians.

[Vol]

This debate is hilarious. Don Rickles and a guy trying to be serious.

[Sinekein]

If you found someone frozen in ice who knew nothing about those two people and recent political history in the U.S., and asked him who's the incumbent and who's the challenger, I'm 90% sure that person would get it wrong.

[Vol]

99%, probably. You'd have to know the context of 20XX America to guess Trump's rise.

[TheodoricFriede]

Well I think we can all agree that whoever side you are on, the other guy lost.

[Vol]

That was fun. I'm curious as to why Biden bothered to outright deny some factual claims of Trump about his son and other things, but I suppose no press outlet will actually care to fact check that. Biden did fine, few shaky moments, but his goal was always to make it through stable. Repeat the lines, don't sally too much, everyone calls it a win. Trump was full of piss and vinegar, more eloquent than usual too. Must've done prep, especially at the start. Some good lines. Probably'll get raked over the coals for being flippant about the Proud Boys and not committing to accept the election results no matter what. C'est la vie.

Wallace was crappy. Got bullied, tried arguing, couldn't keep them on track. Next two moderators are going to be worse too.

Whatever side you're on, the other guy lost btw

[Mobius_118]

Trump is always will be a joke.

[Vol]

Reading about free will vs determinism has an interesting conclusion. In the former model, there is generally some sort of non-causal "mind" in humans that allow us to operate uniquely from all other matter (ignoring quantum mechanics). In the latter, we are just the sum of our biology, mind is a retroactive illusion, and everything will happen exactly as it does.

The former being the religious take, generally, because moral responsibility is contingent about "you" actually existing, the latter being the secular take, in which everything is matter and nothing else exists. Morality not existing might have some nasty consequences for us theoretically mindless creatures, but also "evil" wouldn't exist, our reactions to the results would be automated chemical responses as some complicated survival instinct. Surely future science would fully explain it, because the scientist of the gaps isn't a fallacy.

However, determinism also is unfalsifiable, because you would need to prove a truly random event, without any possible cause, to provide a counterexample. And if you go backwards, it inevitably ends up with the Unmoved Mover.

[TheodoricFriede]

I am officially ready to take bets on Trump losing the election.

I do not think he can come back from this.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

I am officially ready to take bets on Trump losing the election.

I do not think he can come back from this.

How much?

[TheodoricFriede]

I am officially ready to take bets on Trump losing the election.

I do not think he can come back from this.

How much?

Last bet was $25.

[Sinekein]

More than 30 days to go, this could even out if Biden catches it too.

[TheodoricFriede]

More than 30 days to go, this could even out if Biden catches it too.

Doesn't matter.

Trump catching the virus will be construed as Trumps own fault, whether that is fair or not. Biden catching the virus will be viewed as Trumps fault, garnering him sympathy.

The only way Trump recovers from this is if he appears strong the entire time. Which will not happen, because hes a 74 year old man.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

I am officially ready to take bets on Trump losing the election.

I do not think he can come back from this.

How much?

Last bet was $25.

Even odds? You win I send you 25, I win you send me 25? If so I'll take that bet.

[Alienmorph]

Karma is a bitch ain't it Mr. Trump? Hey, maybe try that "let's inject us with some sanitizer to kill the virus" and see how that works out lol

Seriously tho. I don't wish him to die of Covid, but I have a hard f-ing time to feel any sympathy from here.

[Vol]

I'll put up $25 that Trump wins, sure.

I think his and Melania's infection will actually move the needle in his favor, marginally. The gleeful reaction and death wishes are entirely unpalatable to the electorate, so they either will turn them away, or, they will feign sympathy, to the same effect.

@Alien: He's a human being. A husband, father, grandfather. He's not evil incarnate, nor even ideologically committed. Simply a man with a different personality and philosophy than yours. A base human sympathy, even if it amounts to nothing but that, is easy.

[Alienmorph]

@Alien: He's a human being. A husband, father, grandfather. He's not evil incarnate, nor even ideologically committed. Simply a man with a different personality and philosophy than yours. A base human sympathy, even if it amounts to nothing but that, is easy.

If by base human sympathy you mean "I don't wish him to die of suffocation because of a virus" sure, I can get there. Not much further than that, tho.

And no, he's not evil incarnate, but that's kind of the problem. You know... the whole "triviality of evil" thing. At the end of the day he's just a very selfish, greedy, ignorant person, like there's a whole lot of in most (likely all) countries in the world. But that's kind of the problem, had he been a straigh up mustache-twirling bastard, he would have never gone as far as he did in life, and he wouldn't have had the chance to fuck so much stuff up.

[FrozenShadow]

You know what tells a lot about Trump, his administration and what they have done in the past few years?

There are lots of people right now, who don't believe that this Trump's Corana case is real. People have got so used to Trump and people close/working with him to lie about everything possible that people just see this as another, well hoax, from Trump. And it's definitely a convenient timing, if you think about it.

Trump just had a debate with Biden that if he didn't outright lose, it also didn't make him look good either. He has been losing in gallups for ages and his Corona actions had been rather horrible. But now he has Corona, so no more debates or campaigning and him getting sick will now garner him lots of sympathy. And he manages to beat the virus, then that will make him look "good and strong" leader in many people eyes.

And lets be real, I wouldn't even put past Trump for faking the following scenario. This week he has the infection, next week is supposedly "hospitalized" and is close to dying. Two weeks from now, he has "beat" the virus and is on the mend. And three weeks from now, he is back campaigning and miraculously acting stronger than he ever has.

Either way, I don't really know, if Trump is faking his Corona infection or if it's actually real thing. But like I said, it's really telling how so many people don't actually believe this news is real, consider that Trump's and his administration tendency to lie about many things. And the saddest part is that people have complete right to be sceptic of anything Trump and people close to him says.

[Grand Admiral Cheesecake]

Yes. It's really telling how hilariously overbearing TDS has become.

I can't blame most people. The American Media has earned its pravda spurs dozens of times over by this point.

[Sinekein]

Either way, I don't really know, if Trump is faking his Corona infection or if it's actually real thing. But like I said, it's really telling how so many people don't actually believe this news is real, consider that Trump's and his administration tendency to lie about many things. And the saddest part is that people have complete right to be sceptic of anything Trump and people close to him says.

The cancelled campaign meetings are IMO the proof it is real. I would not put it past him to find an excuse to dodge debates - Bolsonaro did exactly that after all and they are eerily similar in personality - but he really seems to live for those speeches in front of adoring crowds. I cannot imagine him sacrificing that.

As for the sympathy I am not sure because he has spent months downplaying the disease and years trying to project a strong man personality. Showing vulnerability is unlikely to garner much sympathy.

I mean, two days ago he was mocking Biden for wearing a mask, during a big TV debate.

[Mobius_118]

On the "it's real" side: He goes about, using COVID as a weapon to loot the US of as much wealth as he can, killing off Social Security, trying to kill off any and all social safety nets, and he gets the virus that, given his age, body composition, failing health, will more than likely drop him like a bad habit. He put himself at risk knowing full well it was deadly, because either he really thought it was a hoax even after getting caught using it to distract people from his looting, or because he really is that stupid.

On the "He's lying like he always does" side: Him lying to get sympathy, get out of debates, push his Hydroxychloroquine insanity, and show that it's "not that bad" (It is), is not outside of his character. He's a draft dodging, tax dodging, contractor stiffing, racist, sexual predator of children. Of course he'd capitalize off COVID as a get out of jail free card.

Like I've heard from the local patriot militia boys, cull the weak. Let nature take its course. If he lied, then he continues to be a slimy shitbag unworthy of attention. If he's actually sick, then hey. He wins a Darwin Award for being as stupid as he looks.

[TheodoricFriede]

I'll put up $25 that Trump wins, sure.

I think his and Melania's infection will actually move the needle in his favor, marginally. The gleeful reaction and death wishes are entirely unpalatable to the electorate, so they either will turn them away, or, they will feign sympathy, to the same effect.

Even odds? You win I send you 25, I win you send me 25? If so I'll take that bet.

I accept both of those.

I was already feeling like Trumps odds were getting worse. This sealed it for me.

Also betting is moot in the unlikely event Trump dies. No prize is awarded until there is no reasonable question of who won.

[Mazder]

Trump taken to hospital after testing positive(BBC)

[Sinekein]

No prize is awarded until there is no reasonable question of who won.

I feel like this caveat might make the entire bet null and void in the end.

[Vol]

I was about to make a point about using rational thought to parse out how likely it is he has it, based on the cost/benefit, the number of people involved, and so on, but relocating to Walter Reed about puts a pin in that. Word is it's "mild" for him and Melania and him so far, and according to the BBC, his BMI is only 30.5. Technically obese, but not terrible. Still a comorbidity.

@Theo: I agree. If he dies, it's null, and whomever is sworn in, if there is no clear winner on election night, is the winner for the purposes of the bet.

[TheodoricFriede]

I feel like this caveat might make the entire bet null and void in the end.

I said, reasonable. If someone is inaugurated, it is reasonable. much as you all love to paint Trump as a tin pot dictator who can stay in power despite losing, it will NEVER happen.

[NCLanceman]

I am officially ready to take bets on Trump losing the election.

I do not think he can come back from this.

Can I get in on this action?

[TheodoricFriede]

Can I get in on this action?

I'm tempted, but $75 dollars is a lot to lose if I'm wrong...

I still think it will be close, I just dont think he will win. Sorry Lance, I should still be a little fiscally responsible. Just in case.

[Sinekein]

I said, reasonable. If someone is inaugurated, it is reasonable. much as you all love to paint Trump as a tin pot dictator who can stay in power despite losing, it will NEVER happen.

I do not think the U.S.A are going to transition into a dictatorship in a couple of months, but I do think it is very likely some people might display a very unreasonable behavior if their champion is defeated, and refuse to admit the loss was fair and square.

If memory serves there still are people who refuse to admit that Bush in 2000 and Trump in 2016 won honestly, and this year the campaign looks way, way more heated than it was with those two cases.

[Alienmorph]

Honestly, I'm just kind of morbidly curious to see what will happen in the next US election and after. I do not think Trump is gonna win or go into full "petty tyrant" mode and refuse to leave the office. Like I said yesterday, he's a dangerous idiot, but not much else. But I also don't think Biden is the best choice to replace him either, and that people expecting him to magically fix all of Trump's fuckups will be sorely mistaken. Plus I wonder how the american leftists are going to act afterwards... are they finally going to calm the fuck down, or get even more zealous because "we have to make sure there's never another Trump in the office" ?

For what is worth, I wish the US the best going into 2021, but you know what they say... hope for the best, prepare for the worst.

[Sinekein]

I feel like the death of Ginsburg might be a game-changer. Before that, Democrats hated Republicans, but mostly blamed Trump for the situation. But with the rushed hearings to add Barret to the court it is possible that they might shift the blame back towards the GOP as a whole as rulebreakers.

And honestly, the consequences of the left hating Trump are not big - he would get mocked forever if he loses, it is possible some prosecutors might make it their personal duty to make his life as miserable as possible, but overall since he is "an outsider" it would not have much long-term consequences on US Politics.

But if the Dems win and decide to pull every possible shitty trick in the book as retaliation against the GOP, that might quickly escalate a situation that is already rather toxic since the Obama-McConnell era. Every time the power switches from one party to another there would be talks about stacking the supreme court or changing its rules, constant filibusters, talking about changes in the electoral college, or adding new States to the union, or changing the rules about voting, or absurd gerrymandering...

And all the time spent by both Congress and the Supreme Court discussing electoral matters, is time that is not spent actually trying to implement new policies.

On another note, it looks like a congressional meeting between Barret and several GOP Senators might have caused a Covid cluster, and two Senators are already confirmed positive. A couple more and the hearings might end up being delayed because the GOP was so adamant on rushing them...

So I hope there is a silver lining and that the GOP will at least finally take Covid seriously from now on. They did not really do that when it was killing tens of thousands of anonymous people, but now with Trump sick and their SCOTUS hearings threatened, they might change their mind and try to enforce stricter health measures, which would benefit the entire country.