Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
Mind you, I speak as The Teetotaler and as a Canuck, but I'm definitely rooting for Biden because I don't want to get invaded by Trump and his goose-steppers.
I remember saying a few years ago that I wouldn't put it past Trump to straight-up declare war on Canada, Mexico, and other American allies, and I remember getting laughed at.
Currently, I'm more sure than ever that Trump would absolutely declare war on Canada and Mexico and try to conquer their land for America. He is just the kind of fascist Hitler-wannabe to attempt something like that on the high of re-election.
I keep saying, Trump does not want to be an elected leader of a democracy, Trump wants to be a dictator of a totalitarian dictatorship. He makes friends with other dictators and picks fights with America's democratic allies. If he had the opportunity, he would absolutely abolish voting, declare himself god-king of the USA for life, and invade the rest of North America.
I don't think it's likely, I think Biden winning is much more likely, and I'm grateful for Trump's stupidity being a massive roadblock in the way of his ambitions, but it's easy to forget the sort of man we're dealing with here.
Since Greenland is mostly governed by (and populated by) Greenlandic Inuits, if they were independent I suspect Trump would have brought back Manifest Destiny and invaded them already. :V
Edited by PresidentStalkeyes on Oct 31st 2020 at 3:42:58 PM
Those sell-by-dates won't stop me because I can't read!Although I have no doubt that Trump would love to invade Canada for any dumb reason he could think of, I also have no doubt that the current leaders of the army and every single person in the administration would do everything in their power to prevent that. There is no viable reason for the US to invade us, not the least because Canada is the closest ally the US has, and they would instantly lose all of their influence in the entire world (no one wants to be allied to someone who so blatantly betrays an ally). Everyone would turn against them, everyone would turn away from the US in a heartbeat.
The money sink for an occupation of Canada would be out of control as well. Controlling the city centers will be easy since most of them are close to the Canada/US border, but Canada is 95% wilderness and will be just as difficult to keep control of as Afghanistan, if not more.
Edited by ScubaWolf on Oct 31st 2020 at 11:49:42 AM
"In a move surprising absolutely no one"Trump would have wanted to, the military aren’t going to start a full scale war because he asks them to.
I think he did officially declare Canada a national security threat though.
“And the Bunny nails it!” ~ Gabrael “If the UN can get through a day without everyone strangling everyone else so can we.” ~ CyranPlus, the US has been fighting most of its wars in a desert for the past 30 years and would be unaccustomed to winter warfare. You know how trying to invade Russia never works out for anyone because you can only cover so much ground before winter sets in? Same deal. On top of that, a sizable portion of the Canadian population is part French, and therefore has the raging-hot, battle-hungry blood of Robespierre and Napoleon running through their veins. :V
Yes I know Napoleon was actually Corsican, but shhhh
Edited by PresidentStalkeyes on Oct 31st 2020 at 4:08:38 PM
Those sell-by-dates won't stop me because I can't read!As for Mexico, I could definitely see Trump making a speech that goes something like this:
- Trump: "For decades now, Mexico has been sending America criminals, rapists, and overall bad people, and they're doing it maliciously to erode the American way of life. To stop them from doing it in the future, I am officially declaring war on Mexico unless they stop sending criminals and rapists to our beautiful country. If immigration from Mexico does not stop within the next two weeks, I am going to send troops, tanks, and bombers in to destroy their country."
Only more incoherent and rambly. He's already keeping innocent Mexicans in concentration camps, going full genocide on the country is the next logical step.
God, I can't wait until he's gone, I can't believe I live in a world where this insanity even sounds remotely plausible.
If all else fails, he could always declare war on pancakes. He's already had a good go at stacking the supreme court with babies, so why not? :V
Those sell-by-dates won't stop me because I can't read!For perspective on voter turnout numbers as they come in on election day, the typical turnout - based on the last few years would be between 55% (140 million people) on the low end and 57% (145 million) on the high end. (This accounts for increases in the voting-age population in the last 5 years.)
Turnout of 55% would be similar to 2004, 2012, and 2016. Turnout of 57% would be similar to 2008.
(Calculated this from Wikipedia: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voter_turnout_in_the_United_States_presidential_elections#Turnout_statistics)
So far - still two days prior to election day - turnout is 91 million people.
Edited by Galadriel on Oct 31st 2020 at 12:51:09 PM
Regarding those over 100,000 thousand votes possibly being thrown out in Texas, while it's not guarantee the same judge has apparently ruled against Republicans/Trump before, based on the reasoning that they took too long to file a complaint.
Something which would definitely apply here. Who knows, maybe his Republican heart would win out this time, but just saying there's precedent for him to not always fall in line.

CNN: China's military rise poses the greatest foreign policy challenge to the next US President
Analysts say the current state of play doesn't leave much room for either the Democratic challenger, former Vice President Joe Biden, or President Donald Trump to pull back from supporting Taiwan.
Biden could offer minor concessions to Beijing, like stopping any new visits by Cabinet-level officials or ensuring future arms sales consist of smaller, less potent weapons, said Timothy Heath, senior researcher at the RAND Corp think tank in Washington.
"But regardless of who wins, the US will likely maintain a friendly relationship with Taiwan and criticize Chinese efforts to intimidate and destabilize the island," said Heath. Beijing continues to view Taiwan as an inseparable part of its territory even though the Chinese Communist Party has never governed the democratic island. China's leader, President Xi Jinping, has been clear in his ambitions to "reunify" the island with the mainland, and has refused to rule out the use of force.
While the analysts expect US support of Taiwan to continue, they also expect that Beijing will not pull back on the increased military pressure it has put on the island — in the form of increased PLA Air Force flights and naval exercises in nearby waters — no matter who is in the White House.
Carl Schuster, a former director of operations at the US Pacific Command's Joint Intelligence Center, said Biden's campaign hasn't given a clear indication of where it will go on the South China Sea.
"The former VP says he will be tougher on China than Trump has been, but less confrontational. ... It is not clear what he means by that," Schuster said.
During the two candidates' final presidential debate, the only reference to the South China Sea was made by Biden, who said that US planes would "fly through" Chinese identification zones set up in the region, something that the US military has done at increased levels under Trump.
Schuster, now a Hawaii Pacific University instructor, says Biden may also be hobbled by his eight years as vice president under Barack Obama. South China Sea countries such as Vietnam and the Philippines judged Obama's policies in the region as "all talk backed by little to no substantive action," he said. "Biden will have to overcome that perception to gain their cooperation beyond the minimum," Schuster said.
Either administration would be wise to stand fast with those who commit to Washington's point of view, he said. If Washington leaves its partners hanging, "they will be left to deal with an angry China."
That said, because of the pandemic's drain on the economy, the next administration will face pressure to cap defense spending at current levels or even trim it, according to the analysts.
Biden may face the more difficult road here.
"There is strong pressure in the Democratic party to scale back the US military presence and investments in maintaining US military power to free up resources for domestic initiatives," Heath said.
But even Trump could be hamstrung.
"Trump's ambitions for the military also face the tailwinds of slow growth, and massive deficits will also limit Trump's ability to boost defense spending," Heath said.