Smart play
It would be so funny to see him win a second term. Not like things can get any worse globally anyway, but the meltdown would be even funnier than the 2016 one! 
I think he will win it, personally (just a thought, I havenāt given any deductive reasoning behind it yet lol)
Not to get all serious on a place like OA but if you think thereās anything remotely funny about him winning another term you can get fucked. Trump winning another term means the continued demolition of so many parts of American life from the environment, health care, civil rights, reproductive rights and so many more things all while he continues to enrich himself, his friends and his family at the expense of the American people. So yeah, I donāt think itās funny at all. For some people itās a matter of life and death.
Really? You mean just like the Clintons, Bushās and all the rest of the people who preceded him. The democrats are as a bad and as corrupt if not more so than the republicans. Itās telling that in the last 4 years the only anti establishment
/Corporate candidate I.e. Bernie gets screwed over twice, yet the DNC had no problem championing some one like Hilary, who has been aiding her nonce husband threaten all the little kiddies heās been jimmy savilling over the years whilst taking millions in donations from the Saudis. So yeah to me it will be hilarious if he wins again, only to see the dipshit celebs and snowflakes epic meltdowns also you too can fuck yourself for getting so triggered over a forum post 
Mate Trump is a whole other level of corruption to any other politician. Yes the Clintonās and Bushes were in the pockets of corporations. In the current Amercian system you canāt really win without corporate sponsorship.
However Trump is currently trying to circumvent democracy. Heās got one of his mates to take over the post office so it isnāt fit for service. Heās doing this to stop the mail votes, which favour Democrats. Heās Heās also said he wonāt accept the election result if he loses. Heās also broken countless laws and because of that half of his campaign staff are behind bars. Thereās a law that states you canāt personally profit from the precidency that heās broken time and again.
Yikes, what a way to signal you have little confidence in the democratic nominee on a debate stage
I think itās more about Trumps narrative and blatant lies. It doesnāt matter who you put up against him, Trump will use the same tactics and the same approach regardless. His cognitive dissonance followers will cheer him on and believe whatever he says.
True to an extent but letās not pretend Trump wonāt have Biden stuttering, stammering and flubbing his way through a debate. Establishments Dems are scared and itās shows with Bidenās low key Campaign.
If anybody else other than Biden was the Nominee, thereād be no question about having debates. You think Bernie wouldnāt kill to debate Trump?
Even if Harris went up against Trump I think people would encourage that to happen because not if for the terrible Optics of having a VP debate the president
Biden would be humiliated in a debate.
Biden competed well enough with Bernie and co and heās infititely better informed than Trump
Not really a proper comparison. The nature of party politics means attacks/responses are toned down, debates are more strictly controlled and questions are more skewed to left leaning policy points.
Even during the democratic debates this year Bidenās performance were very low key/minimal. He banked on his credentials and played it safe. That was his strategy, but weāve seen in live interviews and TV appearances he struggled when there isnāt a very tight and clear script.
Lesser candidates like Harris and Buttigieg were more assertive because they lacked any national presence and needed to make marks. A presidential town hall or a debate is totally different
I bet Trump would make some comment about Biden and children 
Donāt be so sure mate, definitely still depends on which kind of parliamentary system. We have a parliamentary system and one problem is that small parties find that their supporters are spread too thinly, and without having enough of a concentration of supporters in one constituency you arenāt able to get a seat in Parliament, meaning you have no influence whatsoever.
For example, at our last election the Brexit Party got over 600,000 votes (2% of the vote) and didnāt win a single seat. The SNP (Scottish National Party) got about 1.2 million votes (4%) and they got 48 seats in Parliament. The Liberal Democrats got an 11.5% vote share, about 3.7 million votes, and ended up with just 11 seats, when proportionally they should have about six times as many.
This is more to do with First Past the Post, rather than it being a feature of all parliamentary systems, but just saying that parliamentary systems can certainly have their drawbacks too. I canāt stand our electoral system here in the UK, people have different opinions, but imo you look at the figures above and its just totally unjust.
I canāt stand the Brexit Party and probably couldnāt be more different to the majority of their voters, but I find it hard not to look at the results above and think itās a complete injustice. They got half as many votes as a party with 48 seats, and donāt have a single seat. For context, there are 650 seats, so having 48 seats makes them the third biggest party (Lib Dems fourth with their eleven seats) in the country after Labour with just over 200 and the Tories with I think 360 odd.
So if you were living in the UK under FPTP, your vote for a socialist party would basically also be an utter waste of time, because thereās no constituency theyād ever win in, so all votes for them across the country would result in basically nothing.
Iāve always favoured proportional representation because I think our electoral system is so fucking shit.
I suppose the grass is always greener. I do think in my lifetime the electoral college will either be abolished or modified to proportional representation which renders it basically meaningless.
How is this possible legally speaking? Could the Dems simply push through legislation if they control both houses or would it take much more than that?
Can do pretty much what you want if you control both the House and the Senate.
I donāt think either parties want to get rid of it though.
It would require legislation at the State level to allocate electoral votes proportionally rather than a winner take all method. If you have a critical mass of States passing that legislation the college itself becomes useless.
The whole thing was just a way to placate slave owners and the fact we still have it is a total embarrassment.
So Dems would essentially need to be able to pass state legislation in a 270 mass of states? Is this actually possible in swing states?