USA elections 2020 - 2021

[alhoon]

Biden extends the time for VP search.
The guy that wants to convince the USA people he's still capable of running the country can't even pick a VP on time.

[Gaidin]

Where’d you pull august 1st from?

Look, I'd hate to break it to you, but you're going to get strung along until 3-4 days before the Convention. Look to history.

[alhoon]

Where’d you pull august 1st from?

Look, I'd hate to break it to you, but you're going to get strung along until 3-4 days before the Convention. Look to history.

I am not the one that said he would announce the VP in the first week of August, Biden did.

[Gaidin]

I am not the one that said he would announce the VP in the first week of August, Biden did.

Yea, but nobody that knows American elections expected that. They expected to be strung along until when VPs are normally announced. 3-4 days before the convention.

You've demonstrated a great ability to read articles. You're not really analyzing things though. Was 2016 your first real American election to watch? If you really think Biden is breaking a norm, or even a real promise here, I've got a useless bridge in Alaska for you.

GOOD NEWS! Second week of August ends on the 14th. 3 days before the Convention.

[Prodromos]

McConnell signal to Republican Senate candidates: Distance from Trump if necessary

Sen. Mitch McConnell is allowing Republican Senate candidates to do whatever it takes to salvage their campaigns ahead of what Republicans increasingly fear could be a devastating election for their party.

In recent weeks, the Senate majority leader has become so concerned over Republicans losing control of the Senate that he has signaled to vulnerable GOP senators in tough races that they could distance themselves from the President if they feel it is necessary, according to multiple senior Republicans including a source close to McConnell.

...

"GOP major donors are redirecting money to the Senate races," said Fred Zeidman, a Republican donor from Texas. "The Senate is the firewall. We have got to make sure that we hold the Senate no matter who is elected president."

There are some in Washington who are less dire about the circumstances for the GOP. Scott Reed, the veteran Republican strategist who runs the Chamber of Commerce's political arm, sounded a hopeful note about the ability for first-term GOP senators like Gardner and Tillis to close the deal on reelection.

"The Presidential race will tighten and this Senate class of 2014 is sharp, strong and well versed at winning," said Reed, who echoed other Republicans in giving Collins the best shot of the four vulnerable GOP senators of winning reelection.

One senior Republican who spoke to CNN was more distraught about where Trump has put the party fewer than 100 days before the election. "Where can we play offense? Zero places," said this Republican. "Where is he playing defense? All the places he shouldn't have to worry about."

[wanderwegger]

RBG dies is all that remains and Trump becomes only a hindrance. Throw in the weakening under him to American power abroad and Trump’s deep deep fear that whatever Putin has on him will come out McConnell and the GOP will gladly hang him out to dry.

Trumps epic failure on covid is too much for anyone.

[Gaidin]

McConnell signal to Republican Senate candidates: Distance from Trump if necessary

It only took him four months to tell the Senators to jump off the Trump Train if they need to...look where the maps went in that timeframe...



Going top to bottom, left to right, those are Cook Political Senate maps for November, January, March, May, June, and July. Arizona and Iowa is particularly interesting. So is Georgia. Other states that started lighter blue have sort of solidified themselves...

[B. W.]

Again, I don't care anymore how much you mean it, I want you to show me that what you're saying is true. Show me when the Democrats changed its stance on white women being oppressed to being oppressors. Not a Democrat, the Democrats.

I think your whole motte-and-bailey argument needs some work. Usually, you try to make your supporting evidence actually link with your controversial claim. So far, it really doesn't:
- Disagreeing with you does not equal thoughtlessness, because not believing everything someone says at face value can be a sign of critical thinking.
- Experiencing emotional changes is a far cry from being a "nut job". Everyone -- including men -- have emotional changes, doesn't make them insane. Oh, and younger women are more Democratic than older women anyways.
- Not having proof to reach a conviction does not mean the accuser or prosecution lied. Cases of defamation does not mean the whole entire #MeToo movement is nothing but false allegations. That's a serious accusation to make, especially without much in the way of evidence (see the irony?).

You seem to think I'm some kind of socialist or something really left-wing, but I'm really not. I'm not even a Democrat. I just think your reasoning for why more women vote Democrat sucks.

And again, you didn't answer the question. You can't. There is no scientific study that proclaims that having two opposing contradictory beliefs as your emotional foundation is the key to a stable and sound mind.

I never said that all women who accuse men of harassment are lying. The MeToo movement was orchestrated by the Democrats in an effort to take out Supreme Court nominee Bret Kavanuah. It was a tiger they soon wished they had never hopped on. The result was a massacre of some of the most well known Democratic supporters: Harvey Weinstein, Jim Acosta, the news anchor (who, as it turned out, had a button under his desk that would lock the door to his office so his victims couldn't escape), and don't forget the guy that had a tingling up his leg when he heard Obama speak, Chris Mathews. It turns out he had a tingling elsewhere for some of his young interns. And, of course, the list of Hollywood celebrities who fell victim to the movement is a long and distinguished one. They were all Democrats. Victims of "friendly fire", as it were.

So what did the Democrats do to get off that fiery tiger? They hopped on another one. The BLM movement, it's violence, the protesters, and the Democrats and media who support it and them. Are there any potential Democrat females politicians who haven't spoke in favor of them? That's an important question since Biden has proclaimed his choice for VP will be a woman. Ask yourself the question: Who in their right mind would vote for someone who has called all the rioting and destruction of private and public property the equivalent of a peaceful block party? Bear in mind the city of Minneapolis police department is send out e-mails to the city's citizens to give up their phones and wallets to any perp who demands them in order to avoid a beat down.

The protests and riots are being done by Democrats in cities that have been ran by Democrats for decades. It is obvious and no amount of media spin is going to change the obvious. I was around in 1968 and watched the riots at the Chicago Democratic convention. It was obvious that it was Democrats rioting against Democrats. Go back and see how that election turned out. Do you really believe there will be a different result this time?

[wanderwegger]

You mean Matt Lauer not Jim Acosta. Today show vs CNN White House correspondent recently famous for repeatedly making Trump emote a lot.

Metoo started trending in October 2017. Kavanaugh wasn’t nominated until July 2018. Seems the Democrats are deep strategists if they were that far ahead of the game. Maybe not though as Metoo’s effectiveness is grounded in the perpetrators base of support and conservatives have consistently shown they are ok with sexual assault. Donald Trump being the most egregious case.

[TheLeft]

Biden extends the time for VP search.
The guy that wants to convince the USA people he's still capable of running the country can't even pick a VP on time.

Biden needs a few more days to decide on the right appointment for V.P. = OUTRAGEOUS!!! HE'S CLEARLY UNFIT FOR OFFICE!!!!!1one

Trump when his bumbling incompetence leads to tens of thousands of unnecessary Covid-19 deaths = This is fine...

amirite?

[pacifism]

And again, you didn't answer the question. You can't. There is no scientific study that proclaims that having two opposing contradictory beliefs as your emotional foundation is the key to a stable and sound mind.

This is getting exasperating. I don't really know how else to put this, because I feel like I'm repeating myself. You keep saying "they live in a contradiction" or whatever, but you haven't shown anything to back up what you're saying. Show me when the Democrats changed its stance on white women being oppressed to being oppressors. Not a Democrat, the Democrats. Show me that it's not because the Democrats take political stances that favor women, because that seems like a better explanation for why more women vote Democrat than saying that they're crazy because they can't be right.

How's this? I'll sweeten the deal for you. My answer to your question is now no. You have not been able to show me that the Democrats have ever changed their tune on whether white women are oppressed or oppressors. You clearly think the answer is yes, but I don't particularly trust your natural insights on politics, so you will have to provide evidence to show me that I'm wrong. Maybe you can search for recent statements the party made on the subject, or resolutions they passed, to show me that I'm wrong. Make me realize that I am wrong with a source or something.

So what did the Democrats do to get off that fiery tiger? They hopped on another one. The BLM movement, it's violence, the protesters, and the Democrats and media who support it and them. Are there any potential Democrat females politicians who haven't spoke in favor of them? That's an important question since Biden has proclaimed his choice for VP will be a woman. Ask yourself the question: Who in their right mind would vote for someone who has called all the rioting and destruction of private and public property the equivalent of a peaceful block party? Bear in mind the city of Minneapolis police department is send out e-mails to the city's citizens to give up their phones and wallets to any perp who demands them in order to avoid a beat down.

The protests and riots are being done by Democrats in cities that have been ran by Democrats for decades. It is obvious and no amount of media spin is going to change the obvious. I was around in 1968 and watched the riots at the Chicago Democratic convention. It was obvious that it was Democrats rioting against Democrats. Go back and see how that election turned out. Do you really believe there will be a different result this time?

Maybe. I don't know for certain. That's the $64,000 question this year, isn't it?

[PointOfViewGun]

Biden extends the time for VP search.
The guy that wants to convince the USA people he's still capable of running the country can't even pick a VP on time.

This comment rather shows desperation in your opposition to Biden. Picking a VP is one of the hardest decision a presidential candidate can make before an election. He's not picking a pasta style for dinner.

[B. W.]

You mean Matt Lauer not Jim Acosta. Today show vs CNN White House correspondent recently famous for repeatedly making Trump emote a lot.

Correction noted.

Metoo started trending in October 2017. Kavanaugh wasn’t nominated until July 2018. Seems the Democrats are deep strategists if they were that far ahead of the game. Maybe not though as Metoo’s effectiveness is grounded in the perpetrators base of support and conservatives have consistently shown they are ok with sexual assault. Donald Trump being the most egregious case.

Actually, the Dems are very good at playing the long game, especially since they knew who Trump's SCOTUS picks would be if he were elected since he published a list during his campaign. SCOTUS is a major issue for both parties. To not plan ahead would have been extremely negligent.

This is getting exasperating. I don't really know how else to put this, because I feel like I'm repeating myself. You keep saying "they live in a contradiction" or whatever, but you haven't shown anything to back up what you're saying. Show me when the Democrats changed its stance on white women being oppressed to being oppressors. Not a Democrat, the Democrats. Show me that it's not because the Democrats take political stances that favor women, because that seems like a better explanation for why more women vote Democrat than saying that they're crazy because they can't be right.

How's this? I'll sweeten the deal for you. My answer to your question is now no. You have not been able to show me that the Democrats have ever changed their tune on whether white women are oppressed or oppressors. You clearly think the answer is yes, but I don't particularly trust your natural insights on politics, so you will have to provide evidence to show me that I'm wrong. Maybe you can search for recent statements the party made on the subject, or resolutions they passed, to show me that I'm wrong. Make me realize that I am wrong with a source or something.



Maybe. I don't know for certain. That's the $64,000 question this year, isn't it?

First, hats off for finally admitting that two contradictory beliefs do not make for a sound mind. That might actually be a first for a leftist on this forum because admitting you made a mistake is a criminal offense here.

As to your contention that Dems have never claimed that women were oppressed, all I can say is where have you been?

I guess you never heard of Gloria Steinem. The Dems used to roll her out every election to tell women how bad they have it and it is all the Republican's and white men's fault. For someone who paid the rent by making nude photo shoots, she's done well for herself. She's now a multi-millionaire. Strangely, she hardly made a peep about the MeToo movement. I think she knows it is not a good time to draw attention to oneself; the Democratic mob might take offense and come after her or her stepson, Christian Bale. I recall reading stories in the 90s about women who had followed her swill and they were bitter because they had passed the age of childbearing before they realized their mistake.

Just look at what happened to Ellen Degeneres. She was the "wholesome" face of the LBGTQ.FMJ crowd. All she did was allow herself to be photographed with George Bush at a sporting event. That's all it took. She had finally gone over the line. Now we find out she's a racist and a very bad person. Who knew?

You seem to be in denial about who and what the Dems support. Apparently you are unaware that every woman on Joe Biden's short list for VP has voiced support for the protests and the BLM movement. Biden himself has not denounced the violence and destruction. Nadler, the Dem Chairman of the Judiciary Committee just two days ago called the protests peaceful and voiced his support. How do you not know this?

As to the $64,000 question, let's look at the overview; The Dems are running on a leftist agenda with a man in obvious mental decline as their candidate and his choice for VP will be a woman who supports the BLM movement and all the violence and destruction that it entails, not to mention they are calling for de-funding the police. This one is not hard to figure out. It doesn't require $64,000.

The Dems just ran an election scenario in which they lost and it included the secession of California and civil war. If you think the Dems aren't radicals, you are woefully misinformed.

[antaeus]

Moving right along...

One interesting thing about having so many misogynist politicians in front of us right now, is how readily they start telling exceptionally competent women that they should smile more

[pacifism]

First, hats off for finally admitting that two contradictory beliefs do not make for a sound mind. That might actually be a first for a leftist on this forum because admitting you made a mistake is a criminal offense here.

As to your contention that Dems have never claimed that women were oppressed, all I can say is where have you been?

Well ... thanks.

I mean, the Democrats have said that women have been oppressed for decades. That part is clear to me. I’m just not sure what you're referring to in terms of the shift away from that already established stance. Is it the George Floyd and Black Lives Matter protests or something? II think the current working theory among more progressive circles is that people can be victims of one kind of discrimination but still privileged in regards to another kind. You know, basic intersectionality stuff.

I guess you never heard of Gloria Steinem. The Dems used to roll her out every election to tell women how bad they have it and it is all the Republican's and white men's fault. For someone who paid the rent by making nude photo shoots, she's done well for herself. She's now a multi-millionaire. Strangely, she hardly made a peep about the MeToo movement. I think she knows it is not a good time to draw attention to oneself; the Democratic mob might take offense and come after her or her stepson, Christian Bale. I recall reading stories in the 90s about women who had followed her swill and they were bitter because they had passed the age of childbearing before they realized their mistake.

Just look at what happened to Ellen Degeneres. She was the "wholesome" face of the LBGTQ.FMJ crowd. All she did was allow herself to be photographed with George Bush at a sporting event. That's all it took. She had finally gone over the line. Now we find out she's a racist and a very bad person. Who knew?

You seem to be in denial about who and what the Dems support. Apparently you are unaware that every woman on Joe Biden's short list for VP has voiced support for the protests and the BLM movement. Biden himself has not denounced the violence and destruction. Nadler, the Dem Chairman of the Judiciary Committee just two days ago called the protests peaceful and voiced his support. How do you not know this?

As to the $64,000 question, let's look at the overview; The Dems are running on a leftist agenda with a man in obvious mental decline as their candidate and his choice for VP will be a woman who supports the BLM movement and all the violence and destruction that it entails, not to mention they are calling for de-funding the police. This one is not hard to figure out. It doesn't require $64,000.

I’m not very familiar with Gloria Steinem. She seems to have been a much more high-profile figure back in the day, but that was before my time. Also, I think that your reasons why people dislike Ellen now is a bit incomplete. It’s been happening for years: the whole non-union home studio production team, allegedly toxic work environment and typical show biz hypocrisy, sexual assault allegations towards producers, and her complaints about quarantining in her mansion. I think those were factors that also contributed to the tipping point. If you disagree, that’s whatever, I don’t really want to argue about Ellen DeGeneres in a thread about the election anyway.

Moving on.

As for your point on Black Lives Matter, I do agree that violent protests are wrong, my username is not “pacifism” for nothing. I think the Democratic Party has been too permissive on that front. But I think it’s important to keep in mind what is at stake. If a random person starts throwing bricks, starting fires, or beating people up, that’s a form of violence that can be easily stopped and charges pressed. It’s also something that can be started by any single person. If only a few police officers are quick to use force and brutality, that’s still a far more difficult form of violence to stop. The police are able to dig in their heels, willing to defend bad apples, and double down on their behavior with a large segment of the public having their back. It’s a lot harder to stop law enforcement from being needlessly violent than it is to stop non-law enforcement from being needlessly violent.

Despite all these people protesting, not a whole lot has really changed. Police are nowhere near in danger of being defunded, so I can see why some people are willing to overlook incidences of violence during protests: they see it as an eyes-on-the-prize, focus-on-fighting-the-bigger-problem sort of thing.

But what is happening is that the protests are enjoying an unusual amount of support. Compared to the original civil rights protests back in the 1950s and ‘60s, George Floyd protests have more widespread support. Polls back then showed many people expressing support for the idea civil rights, but disagreeing with taking any direct action against racism up to around 1970, but by then people only really cared about Vietnam.

Speaking of which, I would also point out that the 1968 presidential election was a realignment in ways that 2020 simply is not. The New Deal coalition was officially over: southerners started abandoning ship once LBG promoted the Civil Rights Act, a strongly anti-war faction emerged, and labor unions were shrinking as we started to shift towards a more serviced-based economy (and they were split between Humphrey and Wallace). Vietnam was the hot issue, and even though there was no incumbent president, Humphrey had a hard time distancing himself from the existing administration that he was VP of. He really only needed California, Illinois, and Ohio to win, which were all somewhat close.

My point is that presidential elections are not really won or lost by any one factor. George Bush won in 2000 due to West Virginia and New Hampshire as well as Florida. I think that the big issues of 2020 just don’t really line up with the ones in 1968, except for civil rights protests and riots. Incumbent presidential candidates usually win, but Trump was not a very strong incumbent from the start. The response on worsening COVID and the increasingly popular BLM protests have only made it harder for him to get a broader appeal. It's a lot harder to pull off the anti-establishment pitch when you're the sitting president.

The Dems just ran an election scenario in which they lost and it included the secession of California and civil war. If you think the Dems aren't radicals, you are woefully misinformed.

Since Joe Manchin and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are in the same party, I'd argue that the Democratic party covers a wider ideological spectrum than the Republicans do right now, but the point is that I think there are still radicals and moderates in both parties.

[antaeus]

Interview covers the election and mail in voting from 22:22.

And otherwise is a masterclass in making a journalist want to kill himself.

[Pontifex Maximus]

This comment rather shows desperation in your opposition to Biden. Picking a VP is one of the hardest decision a presidential candidate can make before an election. He's not picking a pasta style for dinner.

Yet he has nothing but amateur spaghetti cooks to choose from. Tell me, definitively, as in give me a name, give me the name you'd want.

Give me your VP candidate. I'm going to make extra special note of it.

[irontaino]

Interview covers the election and mail in voting from 22:22.

And otherwise is a masterclass in making a journalist want to kill himself.

If this weren't the year 2020, I would have thought this was a skit and that no sitting president could be that stupid.

[alhoon]

Yea, but nobody that knows American elections expected that. They expected to be strung along until when VPs are normally announced. 3-4 days before the convention.

You've demonstrated a great ability to read articles. You're not really analyzing things though. Was 2016 your first real American election to watch? If you really think Biden is breaking a norm, or even a real promise here, I've got a useless bridge in Alaska for you.

GOOD NEWS! Second week of August ends on the 14th. 3 days before the Convention.

Nope, but I have watched 2008's McCain picking the VP in great fanfare. I don't even remember when Romney picked a VP as I wasn't closely following that election.

I certainly haven't followed VP pickings in past elections and to be fair, I doubt I will remember when Biden chose his VP in 4 years all things considered. I may remember he walked back on his word (because he did however you want to paint it) but... a politician walking back on his word is not that surprising.

This is the same Biden that said in September 2018 that we should believe women that claim sexual harassment back when it was convenient, only to (wisely) walk back on his word when he was accused. I happen to agree with 2020 Biden: Women claims should be taken seriously. Not auto-believed, but taken seriously and investigated. If only Biden had the foresight to say that in 2018...


But I digress. Biden walking back on a minor thing like announcing his VP 5-10 days later than he said is not unexpected. Not because VPs are usually picked in August, but because Biden is a politician and it was assumed politically convenient.

[Genava]

Interview covers the election and mail in voting from 22:22.

And otherwise is a masterclass in making a journalist want to kill himself.

The feeling of discomfort/embarrassment I had while watching this interview...