Will Joe Biden be the next president? (1 Viewer)

[AccessBlaster]

 

[NauticalGent]

Gotta love the spin...

 

[AccessBlaster]

By the time anyone gets around to Clinton or the Prince they will both have a diminished capacity not fit for prosecution.

 

[NauticalGent]

Almost like it is designed that way...

 

[AccessBlaster]

Lol so cynical aren't we.

 

[Steve R.]

The incessant drumbeats of a new (disingenuous) Democratic sponsored narrative are begging to emerge. Newsweek article: Supporters Urge Joe Biden Not to Debate Trump, Applaud Hosts for Canceling Over COVID-19 Concerns. The spin behind this is truly outstanding, in the negative sense. Biden, according to Democrats, shouldn't debate Trump because that would give Trump a platform to lie. Biden would then be consumed by the consistent need to "correct" Trump, which according to the Democrats would waste of Biden's valuable time in presenting the Democratic policies out to the public.

 

[Isaac]

The incessant drumbeats of a new (disingenuous) Democratic sponsored narrative are begging to emerge. Newsweek article: Supporters Urge Joe Biden Not to Debate Trump, Applaud Hosts for Canceling Over COVID-19 Concerns. The spin behind this is truly outstanding, in the negative sense. Biden, according to Democrats, shouldn't debate Trump because that would give Trump a platform to lie. Biden would then be consumed by the consistent need to "correct" Trump, which according to the Democrats would waste of Biden's valuable time in presenting the Democratic policies out to the public.

I've been following this 'debates' issue too, a bit, and am currently a bit optimistic as to where things are. In the past, it was mostly the Trump camp who was vocally asserting that Joe Biden would be crushed in debates with Trump. I figured it may just be the typical optimistic stance on their part. However, now that others (in Biden's camp) are also loudly worrying about this fact, I give it more credence, and now I truly believe there is a great chance the debates would help Trump significantly.
So what's the last question left? "Will Biden actually debate?". Unfortunately for him, he already has clearly and publicly committed to do so--it would be very unusual for a candidate not to.
So I think ultimately he will have no choice, and we should see some interesting stuff!

 

[AccessBlaster]

Biden's not even committed to a second term if he is elected, so basically your vote will be for his running mate. Faced with the current nominees most free thinking Americans will not tolerate a Marxist in line for President.

 

[Isaac]

Biden's not even committed to a second term if he is elected, so basically your vote will be for his running mate

It would be interesting to do a quick numbers run on how many times someone has become Pres who was formerly a VP. It does happen that they eventually run for Pres themselves based on their newfound notoriety, but - that definitely does not mean they will succeed.
I guess (if one leans Republican), then the best thing we could hope for in Biden's VP pick would be someone who becomes just popular enough to think they can be President but really would not. Kamela Harris fits this profile IMO.
Of course, the # 1 priority is he picks someone who does not help him become Pres now! That said from a Rep. POV, of course.

 

[Steve R.]

Biden's not even committed to a second term if he is elected, so basically your vote will be for his running mate. Faced with the current nominees most free thinking Americans will not tolerate a Marxist in line for President.

But, how many people (based on listening to the Democrats messaging and the "fake" news media propaganda) would even realize that they would be voting for a Marxist? The public is gullible.

Obama despite his past association with left wing radicals and the racist Rev. Wright was elected President. Furthermore, Obama may now be "coming out of the closet" concerning his left wing political orientation based on his remarks at the funeral of John Lewis. Since Obama's garbage of the past was successfully deeped-sixed, the plausibility of Biden winning must not be discounted.

As I was putting this post together, I ran across this article: Revolutionary Communist Party leader backs Biden

 

[isladogs]

Sigh.... but once again I'll try and redress some sort of balance....
Speaking from an independent point of view, none of the potential CP candidates are remotely Marxist. In fact none are particularly left wing.
Similarly, no matter what Obama's strengths and weaknesses were, he was never a left wing politician.

Having said all that, it may well be that the chosen Dem VP will become candidate for president in 2024.
Both Trump & Biden are far too old and inadequate for the job in 2020 and in my opinion the US has a poisoned choice this year.
Basically, choose the least of two evils depending on your political bias

I think a far more important topic for discussion are the blatant attempts by the Trump administration to discredit the election results in advance.
Whilst postal voting may well give additional scope for electoral fraud, it is likely to be minimal.
However, to allege that it will benefit one party at the expense of the other has absolutely no basis in fact

 

[Isaac]

Speaking from an independent point of view ... In fact none are particularly left wing.

I have to chuckle that that statement could be made from someone with an independent point of view. Elizabeth Warren is not left wing? Really? Karen Bass? I guess ultimately this perhaps isn't a point worth arguing, because "left wing" is an entirely subjective label. To me they are very much left wing. A large number of Democrats are.

However, to allege that it will benefit one party at the expense of the other has absolutely no basis in fact

I guess the key word here is "fact". We can all have opinions on this, but both Democrats and Republicans would all disagree with you, as both of them openly allege that widespread mail-in voting, generally including ballot harvesting capabilities and counting postmark vs. receive date, would absolutely benefit Democrats. Have you considered the reality that generally speaking Democrats are trying hard for it, while Republicans are trying hard to prevent it? That alone may not be 'fact', but then again, there IS no 'fact' yet, because it's never been done before.

Whilst postal voting may well give additional scope for electoral fraud, it is likely to be minimal.

Well, actually, I can tell you that our election counting process has historically been fraught with issues. At every election, there are plentiful stories of machines malfunctioning in various and sundry ways. Generally speaking, when new methods are introduced into the system, more problems arise.

Going from "never having done this", to suddenly mailing universal ballots to hundreds of millions would be a HUGE introduction of very likely problems of all sorts. Given that the slightest changes have produced issues, an extraordinarily huge change would likely produce many issues. It is a logical assumption - although maybe not as much 'fraud', but definitely 'problems'.

 

[Steve R.]

However, to allege that it will benefit one party at the expense of the other has absolutely no basis in fact

Question: Why do the Democrats so zealously file lawsuit after lawsuit to obstruct the verification of voters and/or clean-up the voter roles?

They must believe it is to their benefit to have "unverified" voters. One would think, based on the Democrats prostrations that they want valid voting, that they would endorse insuring that those actually voting are legitimate.

I think a far more important topic for discussion are the blatant attempts by the Trump administration to discredit the election results in advance.

A humorous response considering that the Democrats after realizing that they lost in 2016 attempted and continue to attempt to de-legitimize Trump's election.

My spin, the Trump administration is raising valid concerns over the validity of mail in balloting. Also, it would seem that Trump's concerns over the legitimacy of the coming election are justified based on the Democrats making an unethical "coup" attempt against Trump.

 

[isladogs]

As you say, your 'spin'.
In this case, little point in my applying 'reverse spin' AKA the 'wrong 'un' or possibly the 'googly' depending on your cricketing metaphors.

I agree that you've certainly had election issues in the past. For example the 'hanging chads' in Florida back in 2000

Good luck with your election. Somehow I think your country needs some good luck

EDIT - sorry missed Isaac's reply:
I agree that Elizabeth Warren is left wing (by US standards) though certainly not Marxist. I don't believe she is still considered a potential VP candidate.
As for Karen Bass, I think her comments re Scientology are more worrying than anything she's ever said regarding Cuba

 

[AccessBlaster]

Sigh.... but once again I'll try and redress some sort of balance....

Wonder why nobody express that emotion when people hurl Nazi or Fascist at Trump. Never a call for "balance."

 

[isladogs]

Wonder why nobody express that emotion when people hurl Nazi or Fascist at Trump. Never a call for "balance."

Nobody here has hurled comments like that in this forum.
However there are regular posts here claiming he is the victim of 'fake' news and how he is misrepresented by the media.

 

[AccessBlaster]

So if someone called president Trump a fascist on this forum you would call them out? Good to know.

 

[Steve R.]

However there are regular posts here claiming he is the victim of 'fake' news and how he is misrepresented by the media.

But that is factually true.

 

[Isaac]

Here is a very interesting, and I acknowledge it's only anecdotal, fact that I think speaks a little bit to this concept of a silent majority.

Liberals tend to scoff at this concept that there might be a silent majority, in previous years referred to as a moral majority. The basic idea at least the way I think of it, is that there is a large number of people and some argue a majority of the population, who are truly conservative in nature but they tend to be under counted because conservatives tend to be a little less vocal or visible. in most cases they tend to make their presence known in relatively silent ways, such as spending money, or their vote simply, are some miscellaneous thing that might be totally different as far as an expression of interest or support.

This is the article. This simple phenomenon that occurred with this basketball player's jersey sales speaks volumes to me. Regardless of what people feel compelled to say when for example answering someone on Twitter, about some of the more radical messages being propagated by BLM. Here is a more interesting metric that reflects a response to the debate that was freely expressed in a safer space..

Redirect Notice

 

[AccessBlaster]

I spent the last 18 years of my career around educators and administrators. To a fault they all blame everything on conservatives.

Liberals have had control of education forever in places like California, they are horrible at teaching. We get the honor of being almost last in the nation, despite throwing huge sums of money at mostly salaries and benefits.