If/when Biden is elected...

[Juvenal]

Biden will do exactly what he is supposed to do. Resign so Harris can take over as POTUS.

Paradoxically, this gives me hope. It's hard to imagine a lower bar set for a president than merely not resigning a presidency he's been pursuing his entire life.

Guess I might as well make my peace with God because civil war is coming. I don't give myself a high chance of survival. The death toll will make Covid look like a statistical error.

This as well. With the courts and the police, the national guard, and even the military securely under the jurisdiction of elected powers, there are only two remaining chances for civil war. We can call the first one, "Slim." But this is the head space of his opposition.

So my advice to Biden would be first, don't resign, and second, be the decent guy you've always been. Not a tough mission. He doesn't have to do anything flashy to look good here.

[seanD]

Question to Joe...

"What’s your message to the folks who have not yet voted or do not yet have a plan to vote. And part two, for the 50 million Americans who’ve already voted, what can they do over the last ten days to help make sure that you’re the next President of the United States?" Pfeiffer asked Biden.

Joe's typical word salad answer...

Biden returned word salad at first, saying "Well, first of all, you know, uh, what really rankles, uh, my opponent is I say that, uh, the thing that bothers him most is he’s not a patch on Barack’s jeans. I mean, you know Barack was one hell of a president, and I tell you what, man, what an honor it was — I think you guys believe it, too — to serve with him. I mean, incredible honor. And, uh, I’m not being solicitous. I really mean that. Um, he had more integrity in his little finger than most people have in their whole body and he had a backbone like a ramrod. Has one."

Then this...

"Secondly, we’re in a situation where we have put together — and you’d [sic] guys, did it for our, the president Obama’s administration, before this — we have put together, I think, the most extensive and and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics.

I guess he meant fraudproof? Make of that what you will. Here's the video (at about 19:10)...

[Juvenal]

I wouldn't worry too much though, defeating the axis forces of antifa and blm only takes a platoon or two.

Black Lives Matter May Be the Largest Movement in U.S. History
.

Four recent polls — including one released this week by Civis Analytics, a data science firm that works with businesses and Democratic campaigns — suggest that about 15 million to 26 million people in the United States have participated in demonstrations over the death of George Floyd and others in recent weeks.

It's an arithmetic thing, you wouldn't understand.

[seanD]

Black Lives Matter May Be the Largest Movement in U.S. History
.

Four recent polls — including one released this week by Civis Analytics, a data science firm that works with businesses and Democratic campaigns — suggest that about 15 million to 26 million people in the United States have participated in demonstrations over the death of George Floyd and others in recent weeks.

It's an arithmetic thing, you wouldn't understand.

Assuming that's even accurate, that just shows how susceptible folks are (myself included in the case of Floyd) in being mislead by false facts. That's not something I'd celebrate or gloat about. That's sad, if not downright scary.

[Maranatha]

Black Lives Matter May Be the Largest Movement in U.S. History
.

Four recent polls — including one released this week by Civis Analytics, a data science firm that works with businesses and Democratic campaigns — suggest that about 15 million to 26 million people in the United States have participated in demonstrations over the death of George Floyd and others in recent weeks.

It's an arithmetic thing, you wouldn't understand.

It is not my concern that you like and promote terrorist groups, it's your life.

However, one platoon of actual soldiers could defeat your axis powers.

[Electric Skeptic]

It is not my concern that you like and promote terrorist groups, it's your life.

However, one platoon of actual soldiers could defeat your axis powers.

Sorry, but one platoon could not defeat the approximately half of the country that disagrees with you (including, of course, large numbers of the military).

[Maranatha]

Sorry, but one platoon could not defeat the approximately half of the country that disagrees with you (including, of course, large numbers of the military).

Half the country are violent anarchists and marxists?

Yes, one platoon could vanquish your foot soldiers.

[Electric Skeptic]

Half the country are violent anarchists and marxists?.

Nope. Conservatives imagine that all of those who oppose them are anarchists and marxists.

Yes, one platoon could vanquish your foot soldiers.

No, one platoon could not defeat the approximately half of the country that disagrees with you (including, of course, large numbers of the military).

[Thoughtful Monk]

There's no chance of that happening. None whatsoever.

The first reason is that it would be fundamentally unjust and unAmerican. This claim could be a thread all by itself, but I'll just put it out there and let people respond as they like.

Instead, I'd like to raise the second and actually-more-important point, which is that it would do literally nothing to lower anger levels. Nor would it bring about an ounce of bipartisanship. I respectfully suggest that your idea is exclusive to the conservative POV, and would be offset by the reaction from the liberal - which would be extraordinary.

Republicans are waging a full-scale culture war on American society today. Even if (as they might claim) it was preceded by a Democrat/liberal culture war, the fact is that "pardoning" a single man wouldn't be seen by anyone as a justification to stop.

If partisan peace is a possibility, it's going to take at least a decade for it to come about (barring some event which galvanizes the American citizenry)

ps. and I doubt 300,000 pandemic deaths is going to be that event

Found this article that talks about both sides of the issue of both sides of the issue: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...on_144569.html At least the article doesn't argue that a civil war is coming which I'm distressingly finding too many people are thinking would be a good thing.

If Biden is elected, I hope he takes the reconciliation path. I think the line in the article "Our country would become the proverbial idiot in the shower; the water that was too hot for most of us would then become too cold."

I also think if Biden were to take the retaliation path, it would further lower America's status in the world. We need to get our act together to oppose China before Washington is taking it's orders from Beijing.

Regarding Trump pardon, I think the author would agree with me when I say, pardoning Trump may not lower the anger levels but pursuing the investigations will only raise the anger levels. Given our news cycles, Biden pardons Trump and probably no one is talking about it in two months. Pursue the investigation and then maybe trials, people will be talking about it for years. Certainly it could overshadow the Biden administration trying to do it's agenda. (Imagine the conflict inside CNN between covering the Biden administration and providing updates every minute on the investigation!!) It might actually be in Biden's best interest to end the investigations even if he doesn't pardon.

Unfortunately I'm skeptical that Biden is a great enough man to actually bring about genuine reconciliation. This is also a case where I hope I'm proven wrong.

[Sparko]

bidenvote.jpg

[Electric Skeptic]

Civil War isn't here yet. We're just in some degree of civil unrest. The best analogy I can come up with is it's 1913 in Europe and the sides are still reluctant to pull the trigger, Unfortunately I think we're getting very close to something stupid happens and war starts. I agree the election isn't going to affect the dynamic any. We need all sides to take a deep breath, look into the abyss, decide it's really bad down there, and step back. Unfortunately, I think some parties (and their numbers are growing) think they will come out ahead in a civil war and the aftermath.

I doubt that it will get to civil war, primarily for one reason - the geography of it. Wars typically involve two (or more) armies from different geographical areas. The US' Civil War was, of course, north vs south (with some haziness as to the exact dividing line). But now there's no such geographical divide. How can it be a civil war when, across the entire country, it's neighbour vs neighbour, with no significantly-sized geographical area for either side to fight for/from? How will (for example) the <insert side> of California get together with the <insert same side> from Florida? And the two of them unite with the <insert same side> from Minnesota? While California, Florida and Minnesota all have large forces from <insert other side>? Even the strongest areas for a particular side (for example, the south) have significant support for the other side. How would the south have done in the civil war if there'd been another army fighting for the union formed up just to their south?

If it gets to it - and I really, really, really hope it doesn't - I think it will be more like a civil riot (and I don't mean anything friendly by 'civil'). I keep imagining what the large cities would look like and keep coming up with images of Beirut. If it gets to that point I imagine that those of us with citizenship elsewhere may be very glad of it.

[Whateverman]

Found this article that talks about both sides of the issue of both sides of the issue: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/ar...on_144569.html At least the article doesn't argue that a civil war is coming which I'm distressingly finding too many people are thinking would be a good thing.

If Biden is elected, I hope he takes the reconciliation path. I think the line in the article "Our country would become the proverbial idiot in the shower; the water that was too hot for most of us would then become too cold."

If a civil war happens, it's not going to start in a single day, or over a single event; it's going to be a slow escalation. Sure, we can see pockets of violence/injustice today, and it's possible the upcoming election results will produce more (no matter who wins). But it's low-level and small scale, and most people are worried about the future; I think this anxiety serves to keep people from overreacting on a large scale. That's just my opinion, though.

I also think if Biden were to take the retaliation path, it would further lower America's status in the world.

I do not understand this point of view at all.

Surely you would agree that America's standing in the world today isn't great, and that it's declined during the Trump administration. I'm not claiming it was great during Obama's reign, and I wont (for the sake of argument) claim that Trump is responsible for the decline; maybe our low international approval rating is due entirely to the pandemic. With all of these things as a given, how can you argue that (eg.) prosecution of Trump for some crime would actually lower our approval rating lower than it already is? I'm genuinely curious...

Regarding Trump pardon, I think the author would agree with me when I say, pardoning Trump may not lower the anger levels but pursuing the investigations will only raise the anger levels. Given our news cycles, Biden pardons Trump and probably no one is talking about it in two months. Pursue the investigation and then maybe trials, people will be talking about it for years. Certainly it could overshadow the Biden administration trying to do it's agenda. (Imagine the conflict inside CNN between covering the Biden administration and providing updates every minute on the investigation!!) It might actually be in Biden's best interest to end the investigations even if he doesn't pardon.

Respectfully submitted, I think you've mostly misread our current situation, in that your predictions don't mesh-well with the attitudes of people (domestic and foreign) who have a low approval rating of our president and our country. I believe there's significant anxiety that Trump will attempt to pardon himself if he loses the election. Yes, it is possible to grant a presidential pardon before charges have even been filed; couple this with the way the GOP have unfairly stacked the SCOTUS, and people are genuinely afraid/angry at the way injustice seems to be ruling the day. If Biden were to pardon the current white house occupant, there'd be significant anger (and I suspect violence) on the Left.

In my opinion, of course.

Unfortunately I'm skeptical that Biden is a great enough man to actually bring about genuine reconciliation. This is also a case where I hope I'm proven wrong.

I doubt any one man can do this, and reconciliation within a single presidential term is all-but impossible. I would say that reconciliation is more likely under Biden than Trump, though. Again, in my opinion.

---

Thanks for helping to keep this thread constructive and productive, Thoughtful Monk :)

[Thoughtful Monk]

Since we now have a better idea of the election results, (Please no ballot counting debate here, you have enough other threads to argue about that) I'm going to update a little.

Assuming Biden is the President, we have a narrower Democratic majority (with I think more progressives) in the House and probably a Republican Senate with Mitch McConnell leading I think we have the formula for at least 2 years of gridlock in Congress. It's going to be hard to get anything passed in the House that will also pass the Senate. Packing the court is DOA as it won't pass the Senate and if it does get enacted, the Senate won't confirm the new judges. Green New Deal might go through but in a scaled down version. Even if the Senate goes Democratic (50-50 with Harris tie-breaking), I don't think the Senate will be favorable to passing Progressive legislation. I can't see any major legislative changes.

Biden will do what he can by executive order so look for a lot of court cases over how legal those orders are.

From a "government that governs lest governs best" point of view, I sort of like the situation.

[NorrinRadd]

Since we now have a better idea of the election results, (Please no ballot countithe ng debate here, you have enough other threads to argue about that) I'm going to update a little.

Assuming Biden is the President, we have a narrower Democratic majority (with I think more progressives) in the House and probably a Republican Senate with Mitch McConnell leading I think we have the formula for at least 2 years of gridlock in Congress. It's going to be hard to get anything passed in the House that will also pass the Senate. Packing the court is DOA as it won't pass the Senate and if it does get enacted, the Senate won't confirm the new judges. Green New Deal might go through but in a scaled down version. Even if the Senate goes Democratic (50-50 with Harris tie-breaking), I don't think the Senate will be favorable to passing Progressive legislation. I can't see any major legislative changes.

Biden will do what he can by executive order so look for a lot of court cases over how legal those orders are.

From a "government that governs lest governs best" point of view, I sort of like the situation.

If the Senate goes 50-50 with Harris tie-breaking, the filibuster is dead, court-packing happens, Statehood for DC, PR, and maybe others happens, the full Green New Deal gets passed, Medicare for All passes, all conservative judges in the confirmation pipeline get dumped and replaced with libs and judicial activists, the Little Sisters of the Poor get put back under the thumb, and the list goes on and on and on.

[EvoUK]

If the Senate goes 50-50 with Harris tie-breaking, the filibuster is dead, court-packing happens, Statehood for DC, PR, and maybe others happens, the full Green New Deal gets passed, Medicare for All passes, all conservative judges in the confirmation pipeline get dumped and replaced with libs and judicial activists, the Little Sisters of the Poor get put back under the thumb, and the list goes on and on and on.

Mostly sounds great, though unlikely with a undoubtedly obstructionist Senate under Moscow Mitch.

The judges thing is going to be interesting - Moscow Mitch blocked a lot of Obamas judges (not just SCOTUS) and then rushed through as many as possible with Trump, with several having question-marks over their eligibility for the position in the lower courts, so I'd expect this blocking to continue, though one would hope the Dems would at least look at some of the far-right judges forced in, and see if there was anything that could be done about the most unqualified ones.