The presidency? I have no idea who's going to win . . . but . . . .

If Texas goes blue, combined with CA and NY the possibility of a Republican president plummets to single digits — since the EC disenfranchises voters in the individual states I wonder if Republicans would finally support it’s repeal or serious rework?

 

Based on history's telling of how various civilizations/nations have fallen, I am leaning towards the United States as a nation of 'freedom' irrevokably devolving in a step by step basis whether or not Trump gets re-elected. When the majority of a nation considers patriotism and ethics and morality to be quaint and outmoded value systems then said nation is effectively doomed. 2020 is a siren call indicating that we have reached that tipping point. But then again . . . I am a cynic.

 

May very well be Trump since Biden hasn't really improved his support any since getting the nomination. The lap top thing has certainly eliminated any chance I would ever vote for him. That is not to say I will support Trump either. I will vote on some ballot measures I have clear opinions on, will probably vote for the dem house candidate and GOP Senate candidate (not that either will win), but may not vote for POTUS or may vote third party. IDK. There really isn't a clear choice for POTUS. They are both immoral selfish narcissists.

 

Agreed. Whoever, better.

 

What you are talking about is Critical Race Theory, which has infiltrated our public institutions and private-sector corporations at an administrative (human resources) level. Trump is the only candidate speaking against it. It barely caught a blip in the news cycle.

Biden barely and half-heartedly denounced the riots. I doubt he actually understands what is going on. He is not necessarily a proponent of the Far Left's post-modern Cultural Marxist ideology, but he will be a "permissive" President in that he will not take any federal action to try to stop it. Kamala, on the other hand, is likely to be an active enabler of the illiberal inequities that will naturally result from the "woke" movement.

Trump is the only hope that we can buy four years to slow down the continued takeover of institutional administrations by people who dislike America.

 

Your point is probably quite accurate. I've said many time that the nation does not make the people what they are- the people make the nation what it is. People are the building blocks, like bricks in a wall. They must be individually strong in order to build a strong wall. How they see each other and what values they hold control the relationships between people... which is also the mortar that hold the bricks in the national wall together, and lets the strength of the wall become the strength of all. IF the people lose their individual strength, IF the values and relationships between people become weak or corrupted- the entire wall.... the entire nation.... will suffer and possibly fail, and everyone part of it will be gravely harmed as a result. I'm in favor of all people being strong and healthy and successful, but you can't legislate that into them- you have to breed it into them with good parents, solid homes, and respect for the values that built the nation. Trump supports exactly that; the democrats support the opposite.

We either continue to make the nation strong, or we tear it down because it's not doing enough to make us happy...
We either accept the responsibility as adults to improve ourselves and our nation... or we behave like children demanding a government that coddles and provides for us.
It's very much like an intelligence test.

 

I confess. I love westerns. I grew up thinking Texans were the American ideal, the pioneers and the doers and the people we knew were straight-shooters. (Metaphorically for our foreign readers and other liberals.) Democrats are not doers. That's why they haven't been in power there for decades, but that's only my Michiganian's guess.

So it saddens me to see a state turning into just another California...and I too share your hope they're only telling lies. Don't tread on me, indeed.

 

You can't see that if CA, NY, and TX go blue (even if FL goes back and forth red/blue) how that might disenfranchise voters in 46 states???

If Texas does go blue and causes the Electoral College to swing blue for several elections into the future, that is fair, no matter how people in smaller states might feel. Even if I don't like the thought of a Democrat Party rule for the foreseeable future, I will stand behind our Electoral College system. Elections have consequences, and if Democrats win the most electoral votes, then they get to lead.

If one party gets so screwed up that they cannot win the EC, then the party needs to change its platform so that it wins the EC. The EC doesn't need to change. (That applies to both parties.)

Democrats have only been unhappy with the Electoral College when they lose. They will be fine with it when it works to their advantage.

 

I don't believe that's the case, if anything it has gone further that other way.

 

A recent example is a change in the school regulations in San Francisco. In what is called an effort to create racial equality, they decided that failing to turn work in when due, and bad behavior in classrooms should not impact the grade of a student. I look at that policy in a teaching institution, and I see they are teaching students that whatever you do, you won't have consequences. Apparently, nobody in charge has given a thought to how that message and behavior will affect them in the real world. I doubt it would be possible to think up a dumber idea- let alone endorse it.

 

I am a cynic....and I agree with you. Let's hope that things are not as bad as our gut is telling us they are.

 

Most of the previous incumbents have been capable political operators (or had capable political operators tightly managing them) and made the best of the benefits of campaigning from office. Trump isn't a capable political operator and has been campaigning as if he is a new candidate again.

You don't get additional votes for intensity of support. A Trump supporter with a garden full of placards, a car covered in stickers and attending loads of rallies gets one vote. A Biden supporter who doesn't really like either of them but opting for the least-worst option gets one vote. Counting heads at rallies is only going to pick up the first, decent polling of actual voting intention will pick up both.

How do you know, you've not applied any logic?

 

One presupposes a bare minimum of court arraignments and any bail permitted for whatever offense had caused the arrest. Come on. Fair's fair. The deadbeats won't make bail and the conservatives and the rich Democrats will both all go home --- demonstrated until Hell won't have it.

 

Neither candidate is a vote for "sanity and progress". These are polar opposites of Trump. Biden isn't much better, he's just not Trump. And that's why he will win if he wins.

But I have to question the rest of your analysis if it leads you to the conclusion that a vote for trump is what you said it is. I mean, wow.

 

That's because in Postmoderism, intelligence is only a social construct., as is "everything else" we thought was true during the Enlightment. Since America is systemically racist, the colonizers, who were white men, constructed idiotic ideas like 2+2=4. Because most white men agreed that 2+2=4 in order to oppress others, and because oppressed students might say the answer is 5, or 3, or 40, then it should no longer be imperative that 2+2=4. Education has been systemically racist and we have continually reinforced the victimization of BIPOC's throughout our entire history by forcing them to comply with the white man's social construct on the "correct answer" to a math question. Who says 2+2 has to equal "4"? Why can't it be whatever the student says it is?

That is literally what we are dealing with. What could possibly go wrong?

 

Part of me feels like the big push for mail in voting by the dem's and of course the usps attacks are all in preparation of lawsuits after they lose the EC vote again.

 

Biden really doesn't need Texas. He needs Penn. and the upper-midwest.

 

I wouldn't be so sure. Not EVER in history has a president been smeared, lied about, had fake hoaxes and so on. Not ever has a president been accused of white supremacy with ZERO proof. I think the left was really smart to take control of the media and I think its going to work in their favor. We just need to brace for impact!

 

If he wins Texas' 55 electoral votes, then he doesn't need Pennsylvania's 20. That would just be icing on the cake.

 

They cerainly have a plan . . . and because it's the radicals' controlled Dem Party, it's not going to be in the best interests of the United States; which does not, however, mean that it will automatically be a successful plan.

 

Control of media, and more importantly, of education. The liberal media were taught their "slant".

 

I think both campaigns' are seeing a very close race, and each side is preparing for a post-election battle. It's not going to be pretty. I just hope that not too many cities burn while we await the outcome of lawsuits.

 

At some point you have to ask yourself - if the Tech industry, Education industry, Media Industry, Scientific community, The FBI, CIA and Warren Buffett and the Pope have all shifted to the left - might not the country as a whole be more left leaning than you are? Maybe it's you who are out of step with the world?

Just say'n. The world has been leaning more liberal since the dark ages.

 

Give 'em six months and the TV news shows will start running sound effects to describe their newest failures. Kamikaze dive-bombers.

 

If liberals want to burn their own hovels, let them. And then fight to the bitter end to prevent them from moving out and spreading their vile ideas to smaller towns. See that burned-out house? Liberal tolerance.