2020 the battle of the septuagenarians - Trump vs Biden, Part 2

Carfacemandog

ELM327 wrote: »

Here's hoping

When did you change your opinion from pro choice to pro life?

You were claiming to be pro choice a month ago, but were also championing Trump making it harder for people to access abortion only a few posts back so I am interested about what changed for you in that time.

Quin_Dub

The Unbearables wrote: »

The silent majority will win out for the president as they did in 2016.

They didn't - No such thing existed.

ELM327 wrote: »

Here's hoping

Indeed - But if he does win it won't be a "silent" vote , it will be clearly seen in the polling.

Basically , if he can get the National polling gap down to 4% or below and get the Battleground states to around the break-even level, he has a shot.

If polling stays anywhere close to where it is right now , he won't win.

It's as simple as that.

The Unbearables

Quin_Dub wrote: »

They didn't - No such thing existed.



Indeed - But if he does win it won't be a "silent" vote , it will be clearly seen in the polling.

Basically , if he can get the National polling gap down to 4% or below and get the Battleground states to around the break-even level, he has a shot.

If polling stays anywhere close to where it is right now , he won't win.

It's as simple as that.

Just like in 2016

The Unbearables

Eric Cartman wrote: »

lashes out when criticised by any leader, but sure throw gender into the mix there just to make him seem like a sexist.

Just as well Jacinta isn't a women of colour. The permanently outraged mob would turn the volume up to 10 :eek:

Quin_Dub

The Unbearables wrote: »

Just like in 2016

I'm glad we agree on something - No Silent majority , Polling within 4% Nationally and neck and neck in the swing States was what won 2016.

If Trump can get there , he has a shot - Right now though he's nowhere near that.

And as I also said , a bigger problem for him is the lack of "undecided" voters.

To get to the polling level required he's going to have to try to convince some current Biden voters to move over.

Hard to see how he does that right now.

ArmaniJeanss

The Unbearables wrote: »

The president will be serving a second term.

I wonder which prison that will be in.

Carfacemandog

For all this "silent majority" talk, despite the fact it shows a clear and wilful misunderstanding of what the word 'silent' even means, it also ignores the faxt that Trump didn't have a majority in 2016. He didn't even have the most votes.

The most EC votes yes, and that is the silly system America runs on so he got the presidency. But the majority, or even plurality? No, he got neither.

briany

Quin_Dub wrote: »

I'm glad we agree on something - No Silent majority , Polling within 4% Nationally and neck and neck in the swing States was what won 2016.

If Trump can get there , he has a shot - Right now though he's nowhere near that.

And as I also said , a bigger problem for him is the lack of "undecided" voters.

To get to the polling level required he's going to have to try to convince some current Biden voters to move over.

Hard to see how he does that right now.

After 4 years of seeing how he does his job, I don't see undecided voters plumping for Trump again. On what basis would he be their pick? He doesn't even have any big promises this time around and has turned off a good number of traditional Republican voters.

Muahahaha

Id say Jacinda Ardern would be a much better POTUS than Donald Trump, she actually knows what leadership is

Overheal

briany wrote: »

After 4 years of seeing how he does his job, I don't see undecided voters plumping for Trump again. On what basis would he be their pick? He doesn't even have any big promises this time around and has turned off a good number of traditional Republican voters.

That’s why they’re coordinating with Kanye to be a spoiler

threeball

Quin_Dub wrote: »

No, he hasn't , not even a little.

As was already answered to another supporter claiming the poll were moving in his favour.

Yes ONE poll (from CNN) showed him closing the gap , but the majority did not.

The gap has actually widened.



And just further on those "Battlegounds" - The GOP and Trump have already ceded the field in Michigan , they have suspended all advertising there , they know they can't win

Gas how all these clowns shout "FAKE NEWS, FAKE NEWS" as soon as anyone mentions a story from CNN but they see a CNN poll in Donnies favour and they start promoting it like it came from the bible. Just shows the absolute hypocrisy and stupidity of those who engage in this.

threeball

The Unbearables wrote: »

Just as well Jacinta isn't a women of colour. The permanently outraged mob would turn the volume up to 10 :eek:

He probably thinks shes a member of the senate. The Orange twit will probably tell her to go home and sort out her own sh1thole country if she knows so much.... Again.

duploelabs

The Unbearables wrote: »

Just like in 2016

Can you explain your position as to why you think he'll win, rather than just saying he will. We've heard many an explanation, including my own, as to why he won't, but I'm yet to hear a single cogent argument as to how he will win in November outside of this 'silent majority' (whom haven't been quantified). I'm genuinely intrigued as he's got the worst approval rating and poll gap of any encumbant yet we're told of nothing as to how he'll rectify it other than some wishy washy plan of an October surprise or a health plan that will come in the next couple of weeks (see fox news interview with Wallace yet we're still to see anything actual being signed)

ancapailldorcha

The Unbearables wrote: »

Just like in 2016

When most people voted for Hilary.

threeball

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

I wonder which prison that will be in.

I really hope he is jailed after his term is up, but i just can't see them setting the precedent.

The Unbearables

And here comes the President. Can bunker Joe hold it together? Will the dems be able to hide him away much longer? All to play for folks.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8634501/Trump-narrowed-gap-Biden-poll-shows.html


https://www.newschain.uk/news/trump-closes-gap-bidens-lead-new-poll-suggests-26530

duploelabs

The Unbearables wrote: »

And here comes the President. Can bunker Joe hold it together? Will the dems be able to hide him away much longer? All to play for folks.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8634501/Trump-narrowed-gap-Biden-poll-shows.html


https://www.newschain.uk/news/trump-closes-gap-bidens-lead-new-poll-suggests-26530

What were the polls like in October 2016?

Quin_Dub

The Unbearables wrote: »

And here comes the President. Can bunker Joe hold it together? Will the dems be able to hide him away much longer? All to play for folks.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8634501/Trump-narrowed-gap-Biden-poll-shows.html


https://www.newschain.uk/news/trump-closes-gap-bidens-lead-new-poll-suggests-26530

Seriously??

This has been shown to be a narrow and incorrect viewpoint.

Not Once , but Twice and all in the last few hours.

He's not closing the gap , it's getting wider and none of the fundamentals in the polling have changed one bit.

He's well behind both Nationally and in the key Swing states that he needs to hold to win.

He could change that of course - Let's see what the polling shows in a couple of weeks after the Conventions.

Quin_Dub

duploelabs wrote: »

What were the polls like in October 2016?

You can see the whole detail here

Overheal

Quin_Dub wrote: »

Seriously??

This has been shown to be a narrow and incorrect viewpoint.

Not Once , but Twice and all in the last few hours.

He's not closing the gap , it's getting wider and none of the fundamentals in the polling have changed one bit.

He's well behind both Nationally and in the key Swing states that he needs to hold to win.

He could change that of course - Let's see what the polling shows in a couple of weeks after the Conventions.

Nate Silver did a while or article the other day about how the August polls mean little in the end in all of the above case


https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/our-election-forecast-didnt-say-what-i-thought-it-would/

Overheal

Breaking News from the Senate:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/senate-intelligence-trump-russia-report/2020/08/18/62a7573e-e093-11ea-b69b-64f7b0477ed4_story.html

Trump’s 2016 campaign chair was a ‘grave counterintelligence threat,’ had contact with Russian intelligence, Senate panel finds

The Trump campaign chairman’s contacts with Kremlin-linked officials posed a “grave counterintelligence threat,” according to the final volume of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, which also found that some of the campaign’s other Russian contacts had closer ties to Moscow’s government and intelligence services than previously reported.

The volume, released Tuesday, states that former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort worked with a Russian intelligence officer “on narratives that sought to undermine evidence that Russia interfered in the 2016 U.S. election,” including the idea that Ukrainian election interference was of greater concern.


The report also states that Russian attorney Natalia Veselnitskaya, who met with Manafort, the president’s son, Donald Trump Jr., and his son-in-law Jared Kushner at Trump Tower in 2016, had “significant connections” to the Kremlin. The information she offered to them was also “part of a broader influence operation targeting the United States that was coordinated, at least in part with elements of the Russian government,” the report states.
But the panel also found that the FBI’s handling of Russian threats to the election were “flawed,” and that the FBI gave “unjustified credence” to other allegations regarding Trump’s Russia ties that were made in a dossier compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele, “based on an incomplete understanding of Steele’s past reporting record.”


The Senate Intelligence Committee’s three and a half year investigation stands as Congress’s only bipartisan examination of Russian interference in the 2016 election. But the panel’s leaders were noticeably divided along party lines in how they interpreted the significance of the report — particularly concerning Trump’s Russia contacts — a sign that their tome will likely not put to rest the political fights over its substance.
“We can say, without any hesitation, that the Committee found absolutely no evidence that then-candidate Donald Trump or his campaign colluded with the Russian government to meddle in the 2016 election,” acting chairman Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said in a statement Tuesday morning, though the acknowledged the “what the Committee did find however is very troubling” and included “irrefutable evidence of Russian meddling.”


Vice Chairman Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-Va.), meanwhile, noted “a breathtaking level of contacts between Trump officials and Russian government operatives that is a very real counterintelligence threat to our elections,” and he encouraged “all Americans to carefully review the documented evidence of the unprecedented and massive intervention campaign waged on behalf of then-candidate Donald Trump by Russians and their operatives and to reach their own independent conclusions.”
The committee’s past chairman Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), who oversaw the bulk of the investigation, struck a position in the middle.
“One of the Committee’s most important — and overlooked — findings is that much of Russia’s activities weren’t related to producing a specific electoral outcome, but attempted to undermine our faith in the democratic process itself,” he said in a statement. “Their aim is to sow chaos, discord, and distrust. Their efforts are not limited to elections. The threat is ongoing.”


Burr and Warner launched the committee’s probe before Trump’s inauguration in January 2017, and sustained the bipartisan investigation over the following three and a half years, even as other congressional investigations into the same matter faltered along partisan lines. Since the Senate Intelligence Committee began its probe, former special counsel Robert S. Mueller III also released a 448-page report on Russian interference in the 2016 election, and Trump was impeached and acquitted after Democrats accused him of coercing Ukrainian leaders to interfere in the 2020 election.
The Senate panel’s probe was mostly driven by the committee’s bipartisan staff, who interviewed more than 200 witnesses and wrote thousands of pages detailing their findings.

The committee previously released four volumes of their report examining U.S. election security, Russia’s use of social media in disinformation campaigns, the Obama administration’s response to the perceived threat in 2016, and the intelligence community’s joint assessment that Russia had interfered in an attempt to tip the scales in Trump’s favor.


Yet the panel’s effort to maintain a bipartisan approach also not saved it from partisan scrutiny. Last year, the panel came under fire from Senate Republicans after issuing a subpoena for Donald Trump Jr. to come in for a second round of testimony. Some directed their ire specifically at then-chairman Burr; Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), even suggested that Trump Jr. ought to flout the summons.
After his testimony, Trump Jr. was one of several witnesses that the panel referred to the Justice Department for closer scrutiny over discrepancies between their testimony and that of former deputy Trump campaign manager, Rick Gates, a key witness in Mueller’s probe.


Earlier this year, Burr stepped aside as panel chairman after coming under scrutiny over stocks he sold in industries hit badly by the coronavirus pandemic. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) has been serving as acting chairman in his place.
Graham also claimed earlier this month that FBI officials had lied to the Senate Intelligence Committee regarding the reliability of information in a dossier of Trump’s alleged Russia ties prepared by British spy Christopher Steele. But Graham never informed the panel of his suspicions before taking them public, and Republicans and Democrats on the committee dispute his assertion.
The report comes as Democrats and Republicans head into their party conventions.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/senate-intelligence-trump-russia-report/2020/08/18/62a7573e-e093-11ea-b69b-64f7b0477ed4_story.html

Penn

Trump slammed Michelle Obama by pointing out her speech last night was prerecorded because she said there were over 150k deaths from Covid-19 whereas the deaths are now actually over 170k.

Not sure how she'll ever recover from that burn. Boy, he really schooled her by pointing out more people died because of his administrations handling of the virus than she said.

jamule

Overheal wrote: »

Breaking News from the Senate:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/senate-intelligence-trump-russia-report/2020/08/18/62a7573e-e093-11ea-b69b-64f7b0477ed4_story.html

Trump’s 2016 campaign chair was a ‘grave counterintelligence threat,’ had contact with Russian intelligence, Senate panel finds

The Trump campaign chairman’s contacts with Kremlin-linked officials posed a “grave counterintelligence threat,” according to the final volume of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report into Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, which also found that some of the campaign’s other Russian contacts had closer ties to Moscow’s government and intelligence services than previously reported.

The volume, released Tuesday, states that former Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort worked with a Russian intelligence officer “on narratives that sought to undermine evidence that Russia interfered in the 2016 U.S. election,” including the idea that Ukrainian election interference was of greater concern.


The report also states that Russian attorney Natalia Veselnitskaya, who met with Manafort, the president’s son, Donald Trump Jr., and his son-in-law Jared Kushner at Trump Tower in 2016, had “significant connections” to the Kremlin. The information she offered to them was also “part of a broader influence operation targeting the United States that was coordinated, at least in part with elements of the Russian government,” the report states.
But the panel also found that the FBI’s handling of Russian threats to the election were “flawed,” and that the FBI gave “unjustified credence” to other allegations regarding Trump’s Russia ties that were made in a dossier compiled by former British spy Christopher Steele, “based on an incomplete understanding of Steele’s past reporting record.”


The Senate Intelligence Committee’s three and a half year investigation stands as Congress’s only bipartisan examination of Russian interference in the 2016 election. But the panel’s leaders were noticeably divided along party lines in how they interpreted the significance of the report — particularly concerning Trump’s Russia contacts — a sign that their tome will likely not put to rest the political fights over its substance.
“We can say, without any hesitation, that the Committee found absolutely no evidence that then-candidate Donald Trump or his campaign colluded with the Russian government to meddle in the 2016 election,” acting chairman Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) said in a statement Tuesday morning, though the acknowledged the “what the Committee did find however is very troubling” and included “irrefutable evidence of Russian meddling.”


Vice Chairman Sen. Mark R. Warner (D-Va.), meanwhile, noted “a breathtaking level of contacts between Trump officials and Russian government operatives that is a very real counterintelligence threat to our elections,” and he encouraged “all Americans to carefully review the documented evidence of the unprecedented and massive intervention campaign waged on behalf of then-candidate Donald Trump by Russians and their operatives and to reach their own independent conclusions.”
The committee’s past chairman Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.), who oversaw the bulk of the investigation, struck a position in the middle.
“One of the Committee’s most important — and overlooked — findings is that much of Russia’s activities weren’t related to producing a specific electoral outcome, but attempted to undermine our faith in the democratic process itself,” he said in a statement. “Their aim is to sow chaos, discord, and distrust. Their efforts are not limited to elections. The threat is ongoing.”


Burr and Warner launched the committee’s probe before Trump’s inauguration in January 2017, and sustained the bipartisan investigation over the following three and a half years, even as other congressional investigations into the same matter faltered along partisan lines. Since the Senate Intelligence Committee began its probe, former special counsel Robert S. Mueller III also released a 448-page report on Russian interference in the 2016 election, and Trump was impeached and acquitted after Democrats accused him of coercing Ukrainian leaders to interfere in the 2020 election.
The Senate panel’s probe was mostly driven by the committee’s bipartisan staff, who interviewed more than 200 witnesses and wrote thousands of pages detailing their findings.

The committee previously released four volumes of their report examining U.S. election security, Russia’s use of social media in disinformation campaigns, the Obama administration’s response to the perceived threat in 2016, and the intelligence community’s joint assessment that Russia had interfered in an attempt to tip the scales in Trump’s favor.


Yet the panel’s effort to maintain a bipartisan approach also not saved it from partisan scrutiny. Last year, the panel came under fire from Senate Republicans after issuing a subpoena for Donald Trump Jr. to come in for a second round of testimony. Some directed their ire specifically at then-chairman Burr; Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), even suggested that Trump Jr. ought to flout the summons.
After his testimony, Trump Jr. was one of several witnesses that the panel referred to the Justice Department for closer scrutiny over discrepancies between their testimony and that of former deputy Trump campaign manager, Rick Gates, a key witness in Mueller’s probe.


Earlier this year, Burr stepped aside as panel chairman after coming under scrutiny over stocks he sold in industries hit badly by the coronavirus pandemic. Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.) has been serving as acting chairman in his place.
Graham also claimed earlier this month that FBI officials had lied to the Senate Intelligence Committee regarding the reliability of information in a dossier of Trump’s alleged Russia ties prepared by British spy Christopher Steele. But Graham never informed the panel of his suspicions before taking them public, and Republicans and Democrats on the committee dispute his assertion.
The report comes as Democrats and Republicans head into their party conventions.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/senate-intelligence-trump-russia-report/2020/08/18/62a7573e-e093-11ea-b69b-64f7b0477ed4_story.html

woohoo , its a fooking hoax!

ELM327

Carfacemandog wrote: »

When did you change your opinion from pro choice to pro life?

You were claiming to be pro choice a month ago, but were also championing Trump making it harder for people to access abortion only a few posts back so I am interested about what changed for you in that time.

Nothing has changed, I am pro choice.
Abortion is not an easy choice but as a man my role is to shut up and let women and doctors decide the best healthcare for women.


You don't have to be a pro life hick to be a trump supporter.

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

When most people voted for Hilary.

But that's not relevant, as, the us being a union of states, most states did not vote for Hilary. As you well know.

duploelabs

Penn wrote: »

Trump slammed Michelle Obama by pointing out her speech last night was prerecorded because she said there were over 150k deaths from Covid-19 whereas the deaths are now actually over 170k.

Not sure how she'll ever recover from that burn. Boy, he really schooled her by pointing out more people died because of his administrations handling of the virus than she said.

I kinda think that was a deliberate ploy on Obama's point, getting Trump's ego to point out she's wrong whilst in turn getting him to reiterate her point that he's doing a terrible job

Timberrrrrrrr

jamule wrote: »

woohoo , its a fooking hoax!

Even though all evidence points to it being true?

The Unbearables

Shocking racism from the President

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=28-wn3rLjCA

mcmoustache

The Unbearables wrote: »

And here comes the President. Can bunker Joe hold it together? Will the dems be able to hide him away much longer? All to play for folks.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8634501/Trump-narrowed-gap-Biden-poll-shows.html


https://www.newschain.uk/news/trump-closes-gap-bidens-lead-new-poll-suggests-26530

Aren't those referring to the same outlier poll from cnn that you posted about earlier? If I'm not mistaken, another poster explained that the poll wasn't indicative of a narrowing of the gap and provided you with the numbers. Why would you post the same thing again when the problems with it were already explained to you.

Despite it being explained to you, you are being slow to understand. Coincidentally, "slow to understand" is one of the definitions of the word "obtuse".

mcmoustache

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Even though all evidence points to it being true?

I think Jamule is being sarcastic here.

jamule

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Even though all evidence points to it being true?

Do I need to post a link to some right whinge grifter to prove its a hoax