2020 US Presidential Election (aka: The Trump Coronation)

Boggles

eagle eye wrote: »

So you are saying he is not responsible for the unemployment level?

No. But he is saying he is responsible.

This isn't very confusing TBF.

eagle eye

Boggles wrote:

No. But he is saying he is responsible.[m
This isn't very confusing TBF.

Why did you put three words in bold type?
Who is saying he is responsible? Trump? Blaming himself for something? I doubt that.

Boggles

eagle eye wrote: »

Why did you put three words in bold type?
Who is saying he is responsible? Trump? Blaming himself for something? I doubt that.

Jesus Titty Christ, last time I'm engaging with you.

But here it is again.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/398887965302091776?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E398887965302091776&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffpost.com%2Fentry%2Ftrump-responsibility_n_596ee1a1e4b00db3d0f3f5ae

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/398887965302091776?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E398887965302091776&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffpost.com%2Fentry%2Ftrump-responsibility_n_596ee1a1e4b00db3d0f3f5ae

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/398887965302091776?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E398887965302091776&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffpost.com%2Fentry%2Ftrump-responsibility_n_596ee1a1e4b00db3d0f3f5ae

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/398887965302091776?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E398887965302091776&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffpost.com%2Fentry%2Ftrump-responsibility_n_596ee1a1e4b00db3d0f3f5ae

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/398887965302091776?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E398887965302091776&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffpost.com%2Fentry%2Ftrump-responsibility_n_596ee1a1e4b00db3d0f3f5ae

x5, any more questions please mail them to Not me.

PopePalpatine

Boggles wrote: »

There isn't on tangible reason offered by the Trump Cheerleaders as to how he will win the election, Ahhh 2016, Ahhh Biden has dementia.

What Trump had is gone. It's lots of things now, but ultimately it's boring.

He is completely and utterly finished, the Senators up for reelection were staying with him because he was good for poll numbers. Also because they are cretinous hypocrites. You'll start to see those creepy fúckers turn too.

The only thing up for debate at this moment in time IMO is can the Democrats flip the Senate.

I can think of one. Well, two, between the amount of polling stations being slashed by 97% and voters not getting their absentee ballots. I'll add a third, that he can rile up his base with the twin spectres of antifa and BLM.

Boggles

PopePalpatine wrote: »

I can think of one. Well, two, between the amount of polling stations being slashed by 97% and voters not getting their absentee ballots. I'll add a third, that he can rile up his base with the twin spectres of antifa and BLM.

Meh, riots are fleeting, it's the economy in November that will sink him as well as his presidency basically.

Long voting lines will effect Republicans more given recent data and trends.

Mail voting has seen a tendency to see more Democrats vote.

Why? Because Trump is telling his base that their vote won't count if they do it by mail.

He is fúcking everything up. Erratic desperation.

eagle eye

Look, if Biden goes on national tv calling Corey Booker the President again, forgetting Barcak Obama's name, making up or imagining old war stories, forgetting and mixing up figures and facts and other stuff which suggest dementia then he is going to struggle to beat Trump. Al these things I mention above have happened in the last 12 months.

Quin_Dub

ELM327 wrote: »

There's only one way to slice the numbers, and thats on projected electoral college votes based on % vote share in each state.

Agreed - And right now Biden is comfortably ahead by that measure.

ELM327 wrote: »

I think there's bound to be a reactionary bias at the moment for both parties core groups (blue going more blue as they don't like Trumps handling of the current pandemic and the floyd issue, red going more red as they see the democrat governors at fault).... I don't think either will hold till November.

You could be right of course, 5/6 months is a huge amount of time for opinions to change. but right here and now Trump is losing.

For those numbers to turn back towards Trump he will have to see a massive upswing in the economy and at this point it's hard to see that happening anywhere globally.

Clearly , there'll be some degree of improvement as companies re-open over the coming months , but the chances of the Economy (or any economy round the world tbh) being back to anything close to Jan/Feb 2020 levels by October time-frame are beyond slim.

Will that be enough for voters to believe that a Trump admin can implement the kind of policies that will help rebuild an economy?

One thing that might help Trump is the potential data points that might be around in September/October..

In theory if things start to properly open up in August/September the Job numbers could show record levels of Monthly Job creation figures on the basis that a whole bunch of people will get back to work as the restrictions are lifted. so if Unemployment dropped from the current ~15% back down to 10% or 11% , that on paper would probably be the largest one or two month figures ever. ~10% Unemployment is still awful and lots of people will still be in dire straits though.

Now - touting that as "Record Job Creation" would be disingenuous at best , but when has that ever stopped a politician.

eagle eye

Boggles wrote: »

Jesus Titty Christ, last time I'm engaging with you.

But here it is again.

There's nothing specific in those tweets.

notobtuse

eagle eye wrote: »

I'm not so sure about that. I think he could pull from both sides. He would easily win the debates too.

Sanders, being a socialist, would definitely pull from the democrats vote, but very little from republicans. Republicans would more likely vote for Biden before Sanders.

Boggles

notobtuse wrote: »

Sanders, being a socialist, would definitely pull from the democrats vote, but very little from republicans. Republicans would more likely vote for Biden before Sanders.

A lot of Republicans won't be voting for anyone come election day.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1265255835124539392

eagle eye

notobtuse wrote: »

Sanders, being a socialist, would definitely pull from the democrats vote, but very little from republicans. Republicans would more likely vote for Biden before Sanders.

I got to a laptop. Here you go.

https://www.somagnews.com/famous-hacker-group-anonymous-released-confidential-documents-donald-tramp/

Anonymous released a pile of stuff including all from the above link including this.

Outlaw Pete

Biden lying to the world saying Trump used tear gas on peaceful protesters just so he could stage a photo op:


https://twitter.com/BBCWorld/status/1267828064924233733

Timberrrrrrrr

eagle eye wrote: »

Look, if Biden goes on national tv calling Corey Booker the President again, forgetting Barcak Obama's name, making up or imagining old war stories, forgetting and mixing up figures and facts and other stuff which suggest dementia then he is going to struggle to beat Trump. Al these things I mention above have happened in the last 12 months.

Trump claimed the revolutionary troops took over airport during the civil war, he often uses the wrong words and spouts pure scutter. He is the worse orator to ever hold the office of president and I was around for the George Bush years.

notobtuse

Igotadose wrote: »

There's no cure for either. However, the treatment will be better in a Biden administration.

How in heaven's name will the treatment be better in a Biden administration?

Billy Mays

eagle eye wrote: »

Yeah, certainly looks to be the case. Love to see him run as an independent.

Bernie runs as an independent Trump wins. 100% guaranteed.

Again, for someone who claims they don't want Trump to win you come across as if you really want Trump to win.

Billy Mays

eagle eye

Billy Mays wrote: »

Bernie runs as an independent Trump wins. 100% guaranteed.

Again, for someone who claims they don't want Trump to win you come across as if you really want Trump to win.

I want anybody but Trump and Biden. Does that clear it up for you.

Still a small hope that Biden doesn't get the nomination. He is not capable of doing the job imo.

And I don't think anybody that wants Trump to win would be posting what I just did above. How you can come up with that thought right after what I just posted is beyond me.

Quin_Dub

Outlaw Pete wrote: »

Biden lying to the world saying Trump used tear gas on peaceful protesters just so he could stage a photo op:


https://twitter.com/BBCWorld/status/1267828064924233733

Which part is a lie?

The part about the tear gas or the part about it being a Photo Op.

Because there is zero evidence to suggest that either is a lie right now.

The "Tear gas" thing is an utterly stupid hill for the administration to die on.

They are trying to suggest that they didn't use "Tear Gas" but in fact used Pepper gas pellets. Whilst technically accurate , the term "Tear gas" is widely used to indicate gases that cause eye and throat irritation to clear crowds


That's equivalent to saying "No I didn't use a Hoover , it was a Dyson" - It's pathetic ass-covering and gas-lighting.

And as for the other part - If it wasn't a Photo Op , what exactly was it , given that there is extensive footage of him posing in different ways with "A Bible" and then getting various hangers-on to pose with him as well.

Billy Mays

eagle eye wrote: »

I want anybody but Trump and Biden. Does that clear it up for you.

Still a small hope that Biden doesn't get the nomination. He is not capable of doing the job imo.

And I don't think anybody that wants Trump to win would be posting what I just did above. How you can come up with that thought right after what I just posted is beyond me.

But it's not gonna be anybody but Trump or Biden. It's one or the other. Trump or Biden. If Bernie runs as an independent it guarantees Trump victory.

I'm not a fan of Biden or the Democrat party and completely agree that it's a f*cking shocker they couldn't come up with a better candidate than 77 year old Joe Biden but if it came down to it I'd vote for the massive turd that refused to budge from my toilet this morning ahead of Trump.

notobtuse

eagle eye wrote: »

I got to a laptop. Here you go.

https://www.somagnews.com/famous-hacker-group-anonymous-released-confidential-documents-donald-tramp/

Anonymous released a pile of stuff including all from the above link including this.

Please bear with me. You took issue first with me saying democrats weren’t going after the Epstein matter as it may backfire and let it play out in civil court.

So, you post a section from the civil court action? I'm confused.

Am I missing something?

I then stated Trump took action against Epstein and barred him from Mar Lago. How does your document change any of that?

https://nypost.com/2019/07/09/trump-barred-jeffrey-epstein-from-mar-a-lago-over-sex-assault-court-docs/

And regarding the document that accuses Trump and Epstein of sexual abuse when the woman was 13... Wasn’t the $100 million civil lawsuit dismissed in California in May 2016, refiled in New York in June 2016, and dropped again in November 2016?

There is no doubt Trump knew Esptein. Lots of high profile people did. And anyone can file a lawsuit. That proves nothing.

eagle eye

notobtuse wrote: »

Please bear with me. You took issue first with me saying democrats weren’t going after the Epstein matter as it may backfire and let it play out in civil court.

So, you post a section from the civil court action? I'm confused.

Am I missing something?

I then stated Trump took action against Epstein and barred him from Mar Lago. How does your document change any of that?

https://nypost.com/2019/07/09/trump-barred-jeffrey-epstein-from-mar-a-lago-over-sex-assault-court-docs/

And regarding the document that accuses Trump and Epstein of sexual abuse when the woman was 13... Wasn’t the $100 million civil lawsuit dismissed in California in May 2016, refiled in New York in June 2016, and dropped again in November 2016?

There is no doubt Trump knew Esptein. Lots of high profile people did. And anyone can file a lawsuit. That proves nothing.

So you choose to just dismiss this? Seriously?
What about those pictures with kids in that article.
And a 13 year old female is a child or a girl, not a woman as you put it.

I'm saying that this certainly deserves to be brought up like you suggest the accusation against Biden should be brought up. How can you suggest Biden's one should be and not Trump's?

If you are going to defend Trump on stuff like this, and there's lots more Epstein stuff as well as other stuff, then you either are a psycho/sociopath yourself and just not very bright.

notobtuse

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Which part is a lie?

The part about the tear gas or the part about it being a Photo Op.

Because there is zero evidence to suggest that either is a lie right now.

The "Tear gas" thing is an utterly stupid hill for the administration to die on.

They are trying to suggest that they didn't use "Tear Gas" but in fact used Pepper gas pellets. Whilst technically accurate , the term "Tear gas" is widely used to indicate gases that cause eye and throat irritation to clear crowds


That's equivalent to saying "No I didn't use a Hoover , it was a Dyson" - It's pathetic ass-covering and gas-lighting.

And as for the other part - If it wasn't a Photo Op , what exactly was it , given that there is extensive footage of him posing in different ways with "A Bible" and then getting various hangers-on to pose with him as well.

It was a photo op... all presidents do them. Trump was simply telling the rioters we are here any you are not... the law and order will prevail, violence and mayhem will not.

And yes, police used smoke canisters and pepper balls on a group of combative protesters after they continued to throw projectiles and attempted to grab officer’s weapons. In the case of rioting the White House and surrounding area needs to be secured. It isn’t brain science.

notobtuse

eagle eye wrote: »

So you choose to just dismiss this? Seriously?
What about those pictures with kids in that article.
And a 13 year old female is a child or a girl, not a woman as you put it.

I'm saying that this certainly deserves to be brought up like you suggest the accusation against Biden should be brought up. How can you suggest Biden's one should be and not Trump's?

If you are going to defend Trump on stuff like this, and there's lots more Epstein stuff as well as other stuff, then you either are a psycho/sociopath yourself and just not very bright.

She was a woman when she filed the lawsuit. And I'm not dismissing it. I watched as the lawsuit played out, very publicly, mind you. It was dismissed. It obviously had no merit.

Since the civil lawsuit involving Trump went through the court system, why do you have a problem with the Biden accusations not going through some system like congressional hearings?

And I have no problem with new Epstein investigations. I think they should be done.

kilns

notobtuse wrote: »

It was a photo op... all presidents do them. Trump was simply telling the rioters we are here any you are not... the law and order will prevail, violence and mayhem will not.

And yes, police used smoke canisters and pepper balls on a group of combative protesters after they continued to throw projectiles and attempted to grab officer’s weapons. In the case of rioting the White House and surrounding area needs to be secured. It isn’t brain science.

You obviously have not watched the videos of them clearing the streets.

I think we have all got used to you defending the indefensible on here

duploelabs

notobtuse wrote: »

It was a photo op... all presidents do them. Trump was simply telling the rioters we are here any you are not... the law and order will prevail, violence and mayhem will not.

And yes, police used smoke canisters and pepper balls on a group of combative protesters after they continued to throw projectiles and attempted to grab officer’s weapons. In the case of rioting the White House and surrounding area needs to be secured. It isn’t brain science.

Show us all evidence of where this happened in lafayette park

hetuzozaho

eagle eye wrote: »

There's nothing specific in those tweets.

Trump says he is responsible as he is the leader of the US at the moment. Admirable if you ask me. I'll give him that.

https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/398887965302091776?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E398887965302091776&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffpost.com%2Fentry%2Ftrump-responsibility_n_596ee1a1e4b00db3d0f3f5ae

Quin_Dub

notobtuse wrote: »

It was a photo op... all presidents do them. Trump was simply telling the rioters we are here any you are not... the law and order will prevail, violence and mayhem will not.

And yes, police used smoke canisters and pepper balls on a group of combative protesters after they continued to throw projectiles and attempted to grab officer’s weapons. In the case of rioting the White House and surrounding area needs to be secured. It isn’t brain science.

So why then are the Whitehouse saying that it wasn't a "Photo Op" and they are also sending emails to all the media asking them to "correct" their reporting about the incident and denying that they used "tear gas".

They are also claiming that the protestors attacked 1st and that they found several "caches" of weapons (bricks , sticks etc.) as evidence that the crowd were up to no good , but as yet have not provided a single scrap of evidence to support these claims or indeed to refute the multitude of videos that disprove everything they are claiming.

There was no "Rioting" outside the White House when the authorities opened fire without warning - none whatsoever.

notobtuse

Quin_Dub wrote: »

So why then are the Whitehouse saying that it wasn't a "Photo Op" and they are also sending emails to all the media asking them to "correct" their reporting about the incident and denying that they used "tear gas".

They are also claiming that the protestors attacked 1st and that they found several "caches" of weapons (bricks , sticks etc.) as evidence that the crowd were up to no good , but as yet have not provided a single scrap of evidence to support these claims or indeed to refute the multitude of videos that disprove everything they are claiming.

There was no "Rioting" outside the White House when the authorities opened fire without warning - none whatsoever.

I don't care what the White House says, in addition to the show of solidarity a photo op was involved.

I believe the reporting, even if you don't.
https://nypost.com/2020/06/02/park-police-say-protesters-near-trump-speech-were-cleared-for-attacks-on-cops/

duploelabs

notobtuse wrote: »

I don't care what the White House says, in addition to the show of solidarity a photo op was involved.

I believe the reporting, even if you don't.
https://nypost.com/2020/06/02/park-police-say-protesters-near-trump-speech-were-cleared-for-attacks-on-cops/

Has this story been verified by another source?

Madeleine Birchfield

Donald Trump is going to crack down on the protestors and declare everybody who participated in and supported the protests a member of antifa, this includes the Democrats and much of mainstream media, and arrest them for terrorism and send them as prison labour to the prison-industrial complex, the American version of the gulags.

https://www.greenwichtime.com/news/article/CIA-veterans-who-monitored-crackdowns-abroad-see-15312234.php