US Presidential Election 2020

duploelabs

eagle eye wrote: »

As I've said there are only two people who know if something happened and they are the only two that should make comments about whether the accusation has merit or not.

Didn't stop you posting links discrediting him in this situation

Water John

The fear of AOC I find absolutely funny.

Brian?

eagle eye wrote: »

Michael J Stern is a democrat and Trump hater. Anything he says is going to be in favour of Democrat candidates.

Cool ad hominem. Anything specific in what he said that you disagree with?

eagle eye

Brian? wrote: »

Cool ad hominem. Anything specific in what he said that you disagree with?

Yes, he is basically calling her a liar.

Foxtrol

Biden just had his first interview where he dealt with the topic. He did pretty well, especially for someone with 'serious mental decline'.

He gave his position that it never happened and never properly attacked her. Interviewer was pretty poor as can be expected, very grandstandy and just asking the same question two or three questions over and over again in different ways.

I understand why Biden did it now, to get it out of the way during the pandemic and not let continued questions run until November. The problem is that it will never be enough, as Democrats are held to that different standard by the media. Now that he has spoken about it and asked for the national archives to search for this mysterious complaint, they now want him to release everything in his personal archives - which would be a wet dream for the Trump campaign. Whatever he does will never be enough so he should ride out the pressure now and take the Trump stonewall tactic the rest of the way.

Foxtrol

And like clockwork now that Biden has asked for the National Archives to search for any evidence of a complaint Reade has changed her story again about what was in the complaint. She couldn't make herself look less credible if she was trying.

Professor Moriarty

Foxtrol wrote: »

Biden just had his first interview where he dealt with the topic. He did pretty well, especially for someone with 'serious mental decline'.

He gave his position that it never happened and never properly attacked her. Interviewer was pretty poor as can be expected, very grandstandy and just asking the same question two or three questions over and over again in different ways.

I understand why Biden did it now, to get it out of the way during the pandemic and not let continued questions run until November. The problem is that it will never be enough, as Democrats are held to that different standard by the media. Now that he has spoken about it and asked for the national archives to search for this mysterious complaint, they now want him to release everything in his personal archives - which would be a wet dream for the Trump campaign. Whatever he does will never be enough so he should ride out the pressure now and take the Trump stonewall tactic the rest of the way.

Biden has released his tax returns to 2020. I presume The Donald will do the same.

Foxtrol

Professor Moriarty wrote: »

Biden has released his tax returns to 2020. I presume The Donald will do the same.

And that Donald will call for the HR complaints that included his name to be released to the media for all his companies and those he worked with.

Quin_Dub

Foxtrol wrote: »

And like clockwork now that Biden has asked for the National Archives to search for any evidence of a complaint Reade has changed her story again about what was in the complaint. She couldn't make herself look less credible if she was trying.

Are there details on that online somewhere?

sid waddell

Why did Reade not name Biden in the report she filed to police just three weeks ago? The last sentence of this passage provides a strong clue as to why.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/12/us/politics/joe-biden-tara-reade-sexual-assault-complaint.html

On Thursday, Ms. Reade filed a report with the Washington, D.C., police, saying she was the victim of a sexual assault in 1993; the public incident report, provided to The Times by Ms. Reade and the police, does not mention Mr. Biden by name, but she said the complaint was about him. Ms. Reade said she filed the report to give herself an additional degree of safety from potential threats. Filing a false police report may be punishable by a fine and imprisonment.

eagle eye

Both sides are full of lies. The Democrats are getting murkier by the day. Their sudden ignoring of #metoo shows that they were only using it as a political tool and it was never about women being treated fairly.
There's room, created mainly by Trump and aided in a major way over the last couple of months by the Democrats for a third party. Obviously it'd need huge financial backing but the opportunity is there right now for a third major political organisation.

Foxtrol

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Are there details on that online somewhere?

USA today is the best bet for all her changes but there are others outside of it:

https://amp.usatoday.com/amp/3046962001

Latest is this tweet from a reporter that appears to have spoken to her after the Biden interview. Playing down what is in the complaint that no one can find and she never kept a record of, despite keeping all her other personnel records from the time.

https://twitter.com/marykbruce/status/1256197317235027968?s=20

eagle eye

sid waddell wrote: »

Why did Reade not name Biden in the report she filed to police just three weeks ago? The last sentence of this passage provides a strong clue as to why.

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/12/us/politics/joe-biden-tara-reade-sexual-assault-complaint.html

Utter scutter.
There is no way to prove she is lying just as it would be very difficult to convict somebody based solely on her accounts of any alleged incident.
Let's be clear here, I'm not taking sides on this thing. I, like you and everybody else have no clue if anything happened. It's not our business to speculate either as we have no information.
What we are seeing going on now is a web of lies from both the Republicans and Democrats based on no evidence.

sid waddell

eagle eye wrote: »

Both sides are full of lies. The Democrats are getting murkier by the day. Their sudden ignoring of #metoo shows that they were only using it as a political tool and it was never about women being treated fairly.

Standard Trump supporter both sidesism in order to deflect.

If an allegation has no credibility, and even a cursory dig into this allegation strongly suggests it has none, it isn't part of #metoo, it's a false allegation.

Remember, you're a poster who has no problem whatsoever with supporting Trump despite the litany of credible accusations of rape, paedophilia and sexual assault against him.

Despite heavily pushing the Reade allegation on here, you've made no substantial contribution at all on the actual facts of the case. Then when people do, and because when people dig into the allegation it doesn't suit your narrative, you simply dismiss it.

A classic case of Trump supporter weaponising #metoo for obviously nefarious reasons.

Podge_irl

eagle eye wrote: »

Utter scutter.
There is no way to prove she is lying just as it would be very difficult to convict somebody based solely on her accounts of any alleged incident.
Let's be clear here, I'm not taking sides on this thing. I, like you and everybody else have no clue if anything happened. It's not our business to speculate either as we have no information.
What we are seeing going on now is a web of lies from both the Republicans and Democrats based on no evidence.

We have absolutely piles of information. Her incredible inconsistency and her reported comments over the years are all information. Simply reporting the existence of the allegation while doing absolutely no research into it, or offering any view of the strength of the allegation would be utter and complete abdication of journalistic responsibility.

sid waddell

eagle eye wrote: »

Utter scutter.
There is no way to prove she is lying just as it would be very difficult to convict somebody based solely on her accounts of any alleged incident.
Let's be clear here, I'm not taking sides on this thing. I, like you and everybody else have no clue if anything happened. It's not our business to speculate either as we have no information.
What we are seeing going on now is a web of lies from both the Republicans and Democrats based on no evidence.

More obfusaction and meaningless hot air.

Why didn't you address the question?

Why didn't Reade name Biden in her police report?

She has said publicly in the media that the allegation is about Biden, so if she was filing the report in good faith, there was zero reason not to name him in the report.

Foxtrol

eagle eye wrote: »

Utter scutter.
There is no way to prove she is lying just as it would be very difficult to convict somebody based solely on her accounts of any alleged incident.
Let's be clear here, I'm not taking sides on this thing. I, like you and everybody else have no clue if anything happened. It's not our business to speculate either as we have no information.
What we are seeing going on now is a web of lies from both the Republicans and Democrats based on no evidence.

That is because the complaint is purposefully made that way. It is so vague that there is no way for Biden to prove he wasn't there or didn't do it.

In contrast the Trump and Kavanaugh allegations there specific times and/or witnesses that place the victim and perpetrator there. There were also credible contemporaneous witnesses, which this case is lacking.

sid waddell

Reade stole money from a non-profit animal sanctuary and according to its owner is a "master manipulator". Kind of matters when you're trying to establish whether somebody is credible or not.

https://medium.com/@eddiekrassenstein/biden-accuser-tara-reade-allegedly-stole-from-a-non-profit-organization-e276cac68a2b

sid waddell

Republicans would never just completely make up fake allegations against political opponents.....

This is how Jacob Wohl created a sexual harassment accusation against Robert Mueller

https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/02/26/robert-mueller-hoax-how-jacob-wohl-created-sexual-harassment-plot/2993799002/


A far-right conspiracy theorist tried to smear Elizabeth Warren. Her response shut it down.
Jacob Wohl, a conservative activist, has a history of claiming to have uncovered lewd allegations against perceived enemies of President Donald Trump.

https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/far-right-conspiracy-theorist-tried-smear-elizabeth-warren-her-response-n1062211


Pete Buttigieg was falsely accused of sexual assault in a stunt concocted by conspiracy theorist Jacob Wohl

https://www.businessinsider.com/pete-buttigieg-falsely-accused-of-sexual-assault-jacob-wohl-stunt-2019-4?r=US&IR=T


And they'd never try and spread fake stories about their own candidate who already had credible allegations hanging over him, in order to try and entrap, say, the Washington Post, and discredit the real, credible allegations.

A woman approached The Post with dramatic — and false — tale about Roy Moore. She appears to be part of undercover sting operation.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/a-woman-approached-the-post-with-dramatic--and-false--tale-about-roy-moore-sje-appears-to-be-part-of-undercover-sting-operation/2017/11/27/0c2e335a-cfb6-11e7-9d3a-bcbe2af58c3a_story.html

eagle eye

sid waddell wrote: »

Standard Trump supporter both sidesism in order to deflect.

Just like all those politicians you are a liar. I'm not a Trump supporter. I just don't like Biden as a Presidential candidate.

sid waddell wrote: »

If an allegation has no credibility, and even a cursory dig into this allegation strongly suggests it has none, it isn't part of #metoo, it's a false allegation.

You have no information, just seriously biased guesswork.

sid waddell wrote: »

Remember, you're a poster who has no problem whatsoever with supporting Trump despite the litany of credible accusations of rape, paedophilia and sexual assault against him.

Same lie again.

sid waddell wrote: »

Despite heavily pushing the Reade allegation on here, you've made no substantial contribution at all on the actual facts of the case. Then when people do, and because when people dig into the allegation it doesn't suit your narrative, you simply dismiss it.

At no stage have I ever said I believe Reade. I said I haven't a clue if anything happened but you somehow managed to miss that.

sid waddell wrote: »

A classic case of Trump supporter weaponising #metoo for obviously nefarious reasons.

I suppose if you keep lying somebody might believe you. That's of course if they haven't read the many, many times I've called Donald Trump the worst President in American history in this thread.

eagle eye

sid waddell wrote: »

Reade stole money from a non-profit animal sanctuary and according to its owner is a "master manipulator". Kind of matters when you're trying to establish whether somebody is credible or not.

https://medium.com/@eddiekrassenstein/biden-accuser-tara-reade-allegedly-stole-from-a-non-profit-organization-e276cac68a2b

Is medium.com a reputable site? Is this the start of the Democrats smear campaign against Reade? I'm finding this one hard to believe. Stuff like this makes me start to believe her.

eagle eye

Podge_irl wrote: »

We have absolutely piles of information. Her incredible inconsistency and her reported comments over the years are all information. Simply reporting the existence of the allegation while doing absolutely no research into it, or offering any view of the strength of the allegation would be utter and complete abdication of journalistic responsibility.

We have no information whatsoever. All we have is hot air blown by two sides who want you to believe them and I'm not talking about Biden or Reade here, I'm talking about Democrats and Republicans. This is a he said, she said situation. I'm not taking sides in it or wanting to believe either side. All I'm saying is that all this stuff saying there are holes in her story are attempts to call her a liar and we'll never know whether she is or not and none of those people ever will either. As such there is potential that she is a victim and it's not right to treat a potential victim like this.

Rjd2

eagle eye wrote: »

Is medium.com a reputable site? Is this the start of the Democrats smear campaign against Reade? I'm finding this one hard to believe. Stuff like this makes me start to believe her.

Medium is cool. The authors of the article is from the Krassenstein brothers who have banned from twitter and have been investigated for fraud before. They have a history of breaking stories which never seem to come true.

Yashar Ali probably one of the very few online people who is not part of an echo chamber had a loathing of them.

Essentially they are grifters so best ignored ,,left wing version of Jacob Wohl.


https://twitter.com/yashar/status/989600222488690689

https://news.avclub.com/resistance-grifters-ed-and-brian-krassenstein-booted-f-1835007059
https://twitter.com/Ventuckyspaz/status/1044458455409418240

hotmail.com

As an observer, it seems that sex scandals and indeed sexual abuse scandals are particularly common among American politicians.

Does America have underlying issues with sex and sexual misconduct?

Blueshoe

hotmail.com wrote: »

As an observer, it seems that sex scandals and indeed sexual abuse scandals are particularly common among American politicians.

Does America have underlying issues with sex and sexual misconduct?

More like some women love men with power. Then some men get used to getting their way until they try it with the wrong woman.
Shït storm then occurs

The Phantom Jipper

The treatment of Kavanaugh as a stick to beat Biden with doesn't seem especially fair. Kavanaugh had claims made against him that were deemed to be not credible and were dismissed, specifically those pushed by Michael Avenatti. These Biden claims seem to be equally lacking in merit, and are being dismissed the same way these particular Kavanaugh claims were.

eagle eye

The Phantom Jipper wrote: »

The treatment of Kavanaugh as a stick to beat Biden with doesn't seem especially fair. Kavanaugh had claims made against him that were deemed to be not credible and were dismissed, specifically those pushed by Michael Avenatti. These Biden claims seem to be equally lacking in merit, and are being dismissed the same way these particular Kavanaugh claims were.

Seriously, you have no information so you have no right to claim these allegations are not credible.
I'm not claiming they are true, I don't know. Why can't people just accept they don't know?
It'll never get to a court, so just leave it alone. Don't you realise that there is potential that there is a victim and you are calling that person a liar? How would you feel if somebody close to you was being treated like that?
Those idiots making up their mind about this, and that's either way, are cold, callous, agenda driven assholes.

duploelabs

eagle eye wrote: »

Seriously, you have no information so you have no right to claim these allegations are not credible.
I'm not claiming they are true, I don't know. Why can't people just accept they don't know?
It'll never get to a court, so just leave it alone. Don't you realise that there is potential that there is a victim and you are calling that person a liar? How would you feel if somebody close to you was being treated like that?
Those idiots making up their mind about this, and that's either way, are cold, callous, agenda driven assholes.

Ironic because when pressed for your sources a page or so back by myself and another poster, you came up lacking

eagle eye

duploelabs wrote: »

Ironic because when pressed for your sources a page or so back by myself and another poster, you came up lacking

A source regarding what?

The Phantom Jipper

eagle eye wrote: »

Seriously, you have no information so you have no right to claim these allegations are not credible.
I'm not claiming they are true, I don't know. Why can't people just accept they don't know?
It'll never get to a court, so just leave it alone. Don't you realise that there is potential that there is a victim and you are calling that person a liar? How would you feel if somebody close to you was being treated like that?
Those idiots making up their mind about this, and that's either way, are cold, callous, agenda driven assholes.

If memory serves correct, you've spent the last few months pushing the senile and "creepy Joe" angle, implying all sorts without evidence, so I'll take your musings with a pinch of salt. Had you been a little more measured with your critique of Biden over the last while, instead of lurching from one attack to the next, I'd be more inclined to take what you have to say at face value.

I have no idea what happened the same as yourself, but it's silly to suggest it's 50/50 when there are red flags suggesting that it isn't. By this logic, there is nothing that can be produced in Biden's defence expect for his accuser recanting her accusation.

duploelabs

eagle eye wrote: »

A source regarding what?

duploelabs wrote: »

So that's a no then, have you articles by the writer that prove he should be discredited?

Foxtrol wrote: »

Your posts are continuously anti-Biden so by your twisted logic, nothing you post about Biden, even if it is an unquestioned fact, should be listened to because you are not unbiased.

The idea that facts are not facts any more if they come from a biased source is ridiculous.

You're constantly asked for reputable sources to define your position, past conjecture, when attacking a source

Podge_irl

eagle eye wrote: »

We have no information whatsoever.

This is fundamentally false. We have a litany of information stemming from her public statements and her constantly changing story is a matter of public record. Judging the credibility of sources is something journalists do as a basic principle of their job. Reporting everything someone says with no scrutiny is an abdication of every aspect of their responsibility.

da_miser

The plan was Biden with Hillary as VP , Biden would step aside with health problems a year into the first term, unfortunately for the Dems Bidens mental health is getting worse in real time before our eyes, if he make the debates Trump will eat him alive.
Dems are screwed, Trump will win by a land slide, i'll be betting the farm on his re-election.

briany

da_miser wrote: »

The plan was Biden with Hillary as VP , Biden would step aside with health problems a year into the first term, unfortunately for the Dems Bidens mental health is getting worse in real time before our eyes, if he make the debates Trump will eat him alive.
Dems are screwed, Trump will win by a land slide, i'll be betting the farm on his re-election.

This argument about Biden's declining mental health being why he'll lose does not wash.

Firstly, the same thing has been said of Trump - that he's going senile etc.

Secondly, such is the ignorance and devisiveness of Trump that even a dribbling Joe Biden will be seen as an attractive alternative.

3rd, Trump's going to get hammered on his Coronavirus record and will have no argument for a roaring economy in November.

da_miser

da_miser wrote: »

The plan was Biden with Hillary as VP , Biden would step aside with health problems a year into the first term, unfortunately for the Dems Bidens mental health is getting worse in real time before our eyes, if he make the debates Trump will eat him alive.
Dems are screwed, Trump will win by a land slide, i'll be betting the farm on his re-election.

Can guarantee you that Clinton will not be his vp pick. You can try to make it about her but she's irrelevant at this stage. Biden's mental health is fine and Trump's handling of Corona looks increasingly likely to destroy him.

Wanderer78

Deleted User wrote:

Can guarantee you that Clinton will not be his vp pick. You can try to make it about her but she's irrelevant at this stage. Biden's mental health is fine and Trump's handling of Corona looks increasingly likely to destroy him.

Never ever ever underestimate trump, he has defied everything so far, don't be surprised if he's reelected, his unstable mind suits many voters

Brian?

eagle eye wrote: »

Yes, he is basically calling her a liar.

At least that's a point.

You're ardently anti Biden, do we now ignore everything you have to say about Biden?

The Phantom Jipper

da_miser wrote: »

The plan was Biden with Hillary as VP , Biden would step aside with health problems a year into the first term, unfortunately for the Dems Bidens mental health is getting worse in real time before our eyes, if he make the debates Trump will eat him alive.
Dems are screwed, Trump will win by a land slide, i'll be betting the farm on his re-election.

You can get good odds on him right now, stick part of the farm on now and post up a screenshot.

Brian?

da_miser wrote: »

The plan was Biden with Hillary as VP , Biden would step aside with health problems a year into the first term, unfortunately for the Dems Bidens mental health is getting worse in real time before our eyes, if he make the debates Trump will eat him alive.
Dems are screwed, Trump will win by a land slide, i'll be betting the farm on his re-election.

Who's plan? The Illuminati lizard people?

A senile Biden can out debate Trump and Biden is far from Senile.

Podge_irl

Brian? wrote: »

Who's plan? The Illuminati lizard people?

A senile Biden can out debate Trump and Biden is far from Senile.

It doesn't matter whether someone "out debates" Trump - his supporters are judging it on a completely different metric. By any reasonable standard of debating, Clinton defeated Trump in the debates but it just doesn't matter.

What hopefully will matter is his actions over the last few months.

Tell me how

Podge_irl wrote: »

It doesn't matter whether someone "out debates" Trump - his supporters are judging it on a completely different metric. By any reasonable standard of debating, Clinton defeated Trump in the debates but it just doesn't matter.

What hopefully will matter is his actions over the last few months.

This isn't about Trump supporters. Say 40% of every election is going to vote along party lines. The victor needs 11% of the remaining (ignoring the electorate college connotation for the sake of simplicity).

That 11% from the wavering 20% bandwidth is what will win the election. Here's hoping that the last 4 years have shown people that Trump is neither Presidential, or a strong leader in a time of crisis and they will simply say no thanks.

Biden should focus strongly on his role and experience of working with Obama in lifting the US out of the 08 crash and hopefully 11% of the entire electorate will say that that is far and away a better option.

pixelburp

Indeed; the election is going to come down to the Undecided and ostensible Independents who took a punt the last time on an untested, but Big Talking outsider. Someone who claimed to have all the answers to a post 2008 recovery that had left a large slice of the country behind. The question seems relatively straightforward to me: whether those previously left behind are feeling Buyer's Remorse, happy with their choice - or indeed, they're now feeling worse-off than before. No idea where CoVid sits in all this, but ironically the failure of Trump's administration may yet stoke the same anti-establishment feelings he claimed to be beyond in 2016.

Brian?

Tell me how wrote: »

This isn't about Trump supporters. Say 40% of every election is going to vote along party lines. The victor needs 11% of the remaining (ignoring the electorate college connotation for the sake of simplicity).

That 11% from the wavering 20% bandwidth is what will win the election. Here's hoping that the last 4 years have shown people that Trump is neither Presidential, or a strong leader in a time of crisis and they will simply say no thanks.

Biden should focus strongly on his role and experience of working with Obama in lifting the US out of the 08 crash and hopefully 11% of the entire electorate will say that that is far and away a better option.

27% of the available electorate voted for Trump in 2016. The turnout was abysmal, even by US standards.

All it needs is a decent turnout and he's gone.

Podge_irl

Tell me how wrote: »

This isn't about Trump supporters. Say 40% of every election is going to vote along party lines. The victor needs 11% of the remaining (ignoring the electorate college connotation for the sake of simplicity).

That 11% from the wavering 20% bandwidth is what will win the election. Here's hoping that the last 4 years have shown people that Trump is neither Presidential, or a strong leader in a time of crisis and they will simply say no thanks.

Fair point, but ultimately I remain convinced the debates (if they happen) won't mean a thing. Trump will just be Trump during them and to people who might vote for Trump - be they supporters or independents - won't care about his performances because Trump wins on the Trump metric and the opponent wins on any sensible metric.

Its just difficult to imagine him doing anything in a debate that would have a bigger impact than his actions over the last 4 years.

briany

pixelburp wrote: »

Indeed; the election is going to come down to the Undecided and ostensible Independents who took a punt the last time on an untested, but Big Talking outsider. Someone who claimed to have all the answers to a post 2008 recovery that had left a large slice of the country behind. The question seems relatively straightforward to me: whether those previously left behind are feeling Buyer's Remorse, happy with their choice - or indeed, they're now feeling worse-off than before. No idea where CoVid sits in all this, but ironically the failure of Trump's administration may yet stoke the same anti-establishment feelings he claimed to be beyond in 2016.

Trump's campaign slogan could be, "...And I would have done everything I said, if it weren't for those pesky Democrats, fake news CNN and those horrible Chinese."

What's Trump actually *done* in his 4 years in office? His great wall is nowhere near completion. What about all these manufacturing and coal jobs he said he'd bring back? Is Hillary in prison?

The greatest ace up his sleeve was the generally strong state of America's economy (one that was already resurgent by the end of Obama's term, but never mind that...), but his handling of that could lead to his ace being a non-runner in November.

To be fair to Trump and his administration, they did preside at a time where ISIS have been pretty much destroyed (as a geo-political entity, I mean). But I'm sure Biden would be quick to remind Trump and everyone else that the defeat of ISIS, just as the recovery of the economy, was a ball that got rolling under Obama, and not some sole achievement of Trump.

pixelburp

briany wrote: »

Trump's campaign slogan could be, "...And I would have done everything I said, if it weren't for those pesky Democrats, fake news CNN and those horrible Chinese."

What's Trump actually *done* in his 4 years in office? His great wall is nowhere near completion. What about all these manufacturing and coal jobs he said he'd bring back? Is Hillary in prison?

The greatest ace up his sleeve was the generally strong state of America's economy (one that was already resurgent by the end of Obama's term, but never mind that...), but his handling of that could lead to his ace being a non-runner in November.

To be fair to Trump and his administration, they did preside at a time where ISIS have been pretty much destroyed (as a geo-political entity, I mean). But I'm sure Biden would be quick to remind Trump and everyone else that the defeat of ISIS, just as the recovery of the economy, was a ball that got rolling under Obama, and not some sole achievement of Trump.

You gotta presume the 2020 campaign is in full crisis mode. As you say, rightly or wrongly trump was able to claim a strong economy in the November runup. That alone might have been enough to get the nod. CoVid has well and truly nuked those gains and this administration could find itself presiding over some of the worst joblessness since the Depression. Heck, the GOP might even find itself secretly wanting a democrat administration: easier to sit on the sidelines and talk fiscal responsibility while the other side foots the bill.

Tell me how

pixelburp wrote: »

You gotta presume the 2020 campaign is in full crisis mode. As you say, rightly or wrongly trump was able to claim a strong economy in the November runup. That alone might have been enough to get the nod. CoVid has well and truly nuked those gains and this administration could find itself presiding over some of the worst joblessness since the Depression. Heck, the GOP might even find itself secretly wanting a democrat administration: easier to sit on the sidelines and talk fiscal responsibility while the other side foots the bill.

To add to that, the GOP might struggle to put forward a viable candidate for 2024 if Trump wins this November. Hard to imagine that whoever that might be wouldn't bear the brunt of 8 years of Trump, the last 4 of which will make him look like Pope Francis during his first term when it comes to diplomacy.

Tell me how

Brian? wrote: »

27% of the available electorate voted for Trump in 2016. The turnout was abysmal, even by US standards.

All it needs is a decent turnout and he's gone.

Hence the fervent opposition to postal votes. Could we get to a point where they actually talk up social distancing again in an effort to keep people from the polls?

eire4

Brian? wrote: »

27% of the available electorate voted for Trump in 2016. The turnout was abysmal, even by US standards.

All it needs is a decent turnout and he's gone.

Good point on turnout. When you average out midterms and presidential elections roughly half of the American electorate does not vote at all. There turnout is shameful IMHO largely because the US political system is broken and corrupt and is no longer a democracy but rather an oligarchy that functions to serve the wealthy and major corporations. Massive income inequality being one of the results of this corruption.

It will be interesting to see what voter turnout is like in November given the rampant voter suppression, purging of voters off the voter roles etc that will go on.

StringerBell

I am curious to know what the two lads, Eagle Eye and Rjd I think, apologies if wrong, make of the latest on the Tara Reade accusation given their positions to this point and refusal to accept the holes in the (changing) story?