|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 23, 2020 18:24:38 GMT -5
Because they'd bought their own polling data telling them it wasn't necessary. Remember, Hill actually spent time campaigning in Texas during the weeks leading up to the election (rather than Wisconsin and Penn) because she believed it too. Yes, she conceded, but then spent the last four years complaining about how she was robbed by the system. No, Trump lost the popular vote, but that's not how Presidents are or ever have selected. Member's of her party were talking about impeachment essentially on the day after the election, and the popular vote is often one point that's cited as the basis for their call. As far as Biden never saying he wouldn't accept the results, have you read about a mock-up the Dem's did of election night with Podesta playing the role of Biden? It was an exercise, like a war game. Podesta-Biden's move on election night was to refuse to concede, begin litigation and call on the military to remove Trump from the white house. The Democrat assembly of a legal team to make this happen is no secret at this point. As a matter of fact, in my view, the 25th amendment was written exactly for someone like Trump. I can't imagine where you're coming from. It seems pretty far out there to me. The truth is we're sitting on a powder keg and this fool is lighting matches. If this thing blows up there'll be no winners only losers. I know he has some adolescent fantasy about being a military genius. He's not. He's a fool, a dangerous fool. If you don't see that then there's nothing more to say. We're both wasting our time. You can have the last word. I'm moving on to something nondual. I'm going to piggy-back on this (good post). Some weeks ago President Trump was asked if he lost the election would he accept the results. He said he would look into it. This afternoon he was asked if he lost would there be a peaceful transition of power. He answered: We will take care of the ballots, and there won't be a transition. I think that says everything. |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 23, 2020 21:42:51 GMT -5
I can't imagine where you're coming from. It seems pretty far out there to me. The truth is we're sitting on a powder keg and this fool is lighting matches. If this thing blows up there'll be no winners only losers. I know he has some adolescent fantasy about being a military genius. He's not. He's a fool, a dangerous fool. If you don't see that then there's nothing more to say. We're both wasting our time. You can have the last word. I'm moving on to something nondual. Yes, you are both too far apart. There's no common ground. And as long as that doesn't change, you are wasting your time. I'm a fan of giving credit where credit is due. And I think that's exactly what's missing in political discussions these days. So, I'd say to you (SDP, Zeniac, Laffy), try to find at least 5 characteristics/accomplishments of the other side that are noteworthy and admirable. Let's see if you can find some common ground. Because, once we've started painting the other side as subhuman or loopy, we basically shut out any kind of rational argument. It's a bit sad that the news these days is mostly just a combination of mind reading sold as facts and emotions sold as arguments. So people probably got used to that kind of discourse as some kind of new standard. But it's actually straight from the political playbook. Just take a look at this: Does this sound familiar (especially rule #13)? |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 23, 2020 22:11:06 GMT -5
As a matter of fact, in my view, the 25th amendment was written exactly for someone like Trump. I can't imagine where you're coming from. It seems pretty far out there to me. The truth is we're sitting on a powder keg and this fool is lighting matches. If this thing blows up there'll be no winners only losers. I know he has some adolescent fantasy about being a military genius. He's not. He's a fool, a dangerous fool. If you don't see that then there's nothing more to say. We're both wasting our time. You can have the last word. I'm moving on to something nondual. I'm going to piggy-back on this (good post). Some weeks ago President Trump was asked if he lost the election would he accept the results. He said he would look into it. This afternoon he was asked if he lost would there be a peaceful transition of power. He answered: We will take care of the ballots, and there won't be a transition. I think that says everything. But can't you see the double-bind in this question? This is called framing (Enigma used to call it picture painting). Because with that kind of question, you set up a context for your opponent where he can't win, no matter how he replies (in that context). So, no matter how he answers this questions, he loses. Even if he doesn't answer the question, he still loses. So what should he do? This double-bind business is a very nasty kind of conducting a conversation or a relationship. I am speaking from personal experience here. I've been under similar, constant assault on this forum for years. Laffy and Enigma, too. Different topics, different people, but exact same tactics deployed - words being misquoted or taken out of context or quotes just made up out of thin air - all just for one purpose: to make you wrong or at least look wrong. So usually the only way I know out of a double bind is to either point out the double bind for everyone to see or to change context (not topics, because then you certainly lose), to break out of the manipulative framing. The problem I see re: DJT and his public image is that he's got basically 100% of the legacy media working against him 24/7, which means, a lot of his accomplishments you will never hear about if you just consume these kind of media. That's why I asked, if it isn't reported on the 6 o'clock news (see peace deals), did it actually happen? Or alternatively (see impeachment): If it is reported in the 6 o'clock news day after day, did it actually happen? So what I would suggest is to everyone - just for fun - deliberately, consciously read some news from outlets on the other side. Just for good measure. To put things into perspective. You don't need to agree with the framing of the other side, but by being exposed to their specific framing, you may become aware of your own preferred specific framing. And that will be the first step to finding some common ground. At times it will look like stories from parallel universes, but after a while you'll see how the news is designed to play with your attention, to direct it and exploit it. Just look at this: Exhibit A: www.drudgereport.com/Exhibit B: protrumpnews.com/ |
|
|
|
Post by amit on Sept 24, 2020 3:05:19 GMT -5
Lets introduce a nondual perspective into this thread. How would Trump, or any problem/suffering, be seen from that perspective?
"Knowing you are nothing is wisdom. Knowng you are everything is Love".
Niz.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew on Sept 24, 2020 9:54:44 GMT -5
My experience is that you can't persuade a strong pro-Trumper that the Dems are anything else but evil, and equally, anti-Trumpers aren't often mildly anti-Trump, they are extremely anti-Trump (I don't think Laffy is strong pro-Trump from what I see).
On social media at least, I don't see many strong pro-Dems out there, and my opinion is that it's hard to see anything particularly good about Biden, except that...for the anti-Trumpers....he isn't Trump.
I responded to Marianne Williamson last week on twitter. I asked her the question...for all Trump's apparent flaws, WHY Biden? (And I also told her that people would have more readily voted for her, Yang, Gabbard...or any other politician that hasn't built a long term career out of it...i.e that people are sick of career politicians). She slightly surprisingly replied to me that people should vote for Biden because Trump is absolutely destroying democracy. Her response to me then attracted hundreds of replies...both from disillusioned Dems (that don't want Trump, but find it hard to vote Biden), and of course...many Trump supporters also replied, basically pointing out that the DNC were terribly corrupt and undemocratic.
As a Brit, with far less understanding of American politics than you guys, it was quite interesting to watch and learn a bit. I have no strong sense at all of who I would prefer, and I don't think it's just because I am a Brit. Somehow...I think there are bigger things going on. I was the same on Brexit....I had no strong sense of preference at all and felt there were bigger things going on, though I did strongly support the left candidate in the UK election last year (he was thoroughly beaten).
Hope you're all well and thriving in these unusual times.
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 24, 2020 10:20:15 GMT -5
Because they'd bought their own polling data telling them it wasn't necessary. Remember, Hill actually spent time campaigning in Texas during the weeks leading up to the election (rather than Wisconsin and Penn) because she believed it too. Yes, she conceded, but then spent the last four years complaining about how she was robbed by the system. No, Trump lost the popular vote, but that's not how Presidents are or ever have selected. Member's of her party were talking about impeachment essentially on the day after the election, and the popular vote is often one point that's cited as the basis for their call. As far as Biden never saying he wouldn't accept the results, have you read about a mock-up the Dem's did of election night with Podesta playing the role of Biden? It was an exercise, like a war game. Podesta-Biden's move on election night was to refuse to concede, begin litigation and call on the military to remove Trump from the white house. The Democrat assembly of a legal team to make this happen is no secret at this point. The Democrats lost the 2016 election, no doubt. I'm not a registered Democrat, never have been. Only party I belonged to was the Green Party for a few years. But it irks me that your vote counts more than mine. Wanting to get rid of the electoral college requires a constitutional amendment, but this is a far cry from refusing to accept the election result. What the Democrats fear and I'd say the majority of us independents is exactly what Roger Stone called for, a martial law declaration. The Democrats are pushing for mail in ballots and extensions to allow for counting those ballots to give folks a chance to vote without having to crowd poll boothes during a pandemic. This seems reasonable. Trump is telling people to vote twice. Btw, this is a pandemic, that Trump called "deadly." As far as impeachment was concerned, he held up military aid to an ally at war with an adversary, a murdering a-hole, that Trump loves with a passion and actively helped Trump win the election,. As far as I'm concerned, it was a treasonous act, the Democrats didn't go far enough. but I accept that the Senate refused to convict. But you seem to reject the House's right to impeach? If the shoe were on the other foot and Obama had been caught holding up aid to an ally in the midst of a hot war, the Republicans would have drawn and quartered him. They spent years raking him over the coals over Benghazi. As a matter of fact, in my view, the 25th amendment was written exactly for someone like Trump. I can't imagine where you're coming from. It seems pretty far out there to me. The truth is we're sitting on a powder keg and this fool is lighting matches. If this thing blows up there'll be no winners only losers. I know he has some adolescent fantasy about being a military genius. He's not. He's a fool, a dangerous fool. If you don't see that then there's nothing more to say. We're both wasting our time. You can have the last word. I'm moving on to something nondual. No, I didn't question the right of the house to impeach, but there's another side to that story other than the one you've told. Rather than make that side, what I want to respond to is the notion of who it is that's filling a powder keg and lighting matches. Seems to me that every major media outlet, most major celebrities/twitter, the men who control the big tech companies, the people who decide what entertainment gets produced and mass marketed, scores of career politicians from both parties and, of late, the military brass and the drug company executives all are in lock step on the anti-Trump narratives like the one you've expressed. They've spent the last four years pushing this opposition to the point where there are riots in the streets questioning the legitimacy of the rule of law. Riots that are far from bottom-up, grass roots eruptions, but that are being funded and supported in other ways by huge, multi-national corporations, including the ones on Wall St. And I'm not refraining from arguing the other side of the impeachment because I don't have facts and legal arguments that I can express in support of it, but, as I said to 'dusty at the outset, I'm not writing in this thread to change anyone's mind, as I don't see that as a potentially productive use of time. But, there are many elephants in many rooms here. I acknowledge that some of the right-wing rhetoric directed at Obama was over-the-top and clearly quite racist. I was not in favor of it at the time, but questioning what happened in Libya was a legitimate concern. Even most people who do openly support Trump and are trying to change people's minds about him will admit up front that he's a flawed character. These character flaws are quite easy to exploit by those who would influence folks in terms of cultivating anger and disdain for Trump. Do you really think the people involved with and driving all of those cultural influences have your best interest in mind? Are their motives altruistic, or are they instead, hiding those motives behind your emotional reaction to Trump? "You can always hire one half of the poor to kill the other half". How much of the gender and race-based divisiveness over these past four years is legitimate, and how much has just been a smoke screen to deflect from a concentration of wealth and power at the top of the social apex? Who is it that those at that apex are siding with? Is it Trump? Imagine if the rioters where Trump supporters and it was Obama that was in office ... we're not at martial law now, but would we have been, then? |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 24, 2020 10:37:36 GMT -5
A recent poll showed Trump losing the woman vote by 20 points, but leading the white male vote by 15 That's crazy in a lot of ways Is it Trump that's trying to cultivate that divide, or the one's that oppose him? |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 24, 2020 11:50:49 GMT -5
Lets introduce a nondual perspective into this thread. How would Trump, or any problem/suffering, be seen from that perspective? "Knowing you are nothing is wisdom. Knowng you are everything is Love". Niz. Do you want the short answer or the long answer?  |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Sept 24, 2020 12:05:53 GMT -5
A recent poll showed Trump losing the woman vote by 20 points, but leading the white male vote by 15 That's crazy in a lot of ways For accurate predictions, I suggest to just ignore all those pollsters who predicted a HRC landslide win in 2016 - which is like 99% of all pollsters. Don't let them fool you again with statistics! |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 24, 2020 13:12:27 GMT -5
What, exactly, did Trump do in '16, and what is he doing now to create chaos around the prospect of illegal voting?  The facts of the cali ballot harvesting, are, what they are, and if you want to see examples of what corruption really look like, it's that, the attempt to nationalize it (or at least spread it to swing states), the grant of the franchise to noncitizens, the proposals to lower the voting age to 16, add two new states to imbalance the senate and add justices to the Sct. Responding any further to your definition of corruption makes me feel like the straight guy in a gag. Your arbitrary resort to a median period ignores the fact that rbg was confirmed in 45 days, Roberts in 31 and O'Connor in 34. But, that's even besides the point. Can you explain why it's corrupt to try to rush an appointment before an election? Corruption refers to an abuse of power to assure a private benefit - like, say, if you influence a foreign government to fire a prosecutor looking into a no-show-sweetheart-deal with your son. Even if you can argue that Trump would personally benefit from the appointment, you can't prove that this is the only reason for taking this action, and you're ignoring that it's not an impetus that's personal or specific to Trump (what would Obama or Clinton have done in the same situation?), and, also, that he owes a responsibility to his electorate to try to make it happen, because there's far more at stake in the appointment -- which will probably last for decades -- than just one potential ruling on election litigation. Isn't your opinion about the corruption really about your distaste for the guy on a personal level? I originally made one point. I spoke again to that in the post above, saying corruption is a transaction. An attempt to corrupt is not corruption. Trump outright said he wanted to rush confirmation so that on voting day there will be nine justices who can rule on the question of illegal ballots. IOW, he's saying he's picking someone who will support his side of the question, IOW, he's asking for loyalty, IOW, I will pick you if you favor me. That's just how Trump has operated for 4 years, that's what the Impeachment was about. If you have no problem with that from the President of the United States, I'm sure I can't convince you otherwise. I'm just surprised, I would never have pictured you as a Trump supporter. Corruption would enter if the new Justice supported Trump, picked Trump in a decision, as a trade. I don't think that could ever be determined, as the reason for the decision could be a matter of conscience, held only in the mind of the new Justice. (She could give other ample public reasons for her decision). The film A Man For All Seasons came to mind. First, there is the example of More teaching Richard about bribery and corruption. Second (spoiler alert) Sir Thomas More would not support the divorce (annulment) of King Henry VIII. But he perfectly new the law, and would tell no one his reason of not supporting the King, not telling wife or daughter, no one. He was explaining why to his daughter. Hypothetically, seemed very innocent, if you were to say such-n-such, in public, they can cut my head off. So it took Richard, lying, perjuring himself, also a seemingly quite innocent remark he said he overheard More say, but he did lie in court, and they cut Sir Thomas More's head off. (Quite strikingly, after he was sentenced, he said, since you are going to cut my head off, I might as well give you my view of the King's divorce...). The other stuff, I may think on, make a list, may come back. But basically, Trump is an ignorant fool, despicable. His non-response to COVID-19 shows this in a nutshell. Interestingly, I would recommend the 3rd program of the series Hacking the Mind, on PBS tonight. First two, two of the best things ever on TV, explaining how we operate on autopilot. Well, allow me to point out that although you didn't answer my question directly, you indicated that you do have a negative ad-hominin opinion of Trump as a person. I understand that, but in my opinion, the only difference in this regard of character between him and any of the prior 5 Presidents is his candor about his self-image, rather than resorting to the opposite: obfuscation of false modesty and a theater of decorum, even as they presided over policy making overtly hostile to the majority of the American populace. Please note that "Trump supporter" is exactly the root of political violence: depersonalizing people in the abstract and reducing them to an opinion. Were you conscious of how I was the one who told you from the outset that I had no interest in changing your mind, as you wrote to me, that you have no interest, in changing mine? My interest here has been in WIBIGO. It's notable to me that in describing your perception of the corruption - my original interest here - you led yourself into an analysis that put it into a wider perspective. Thank you, for that candor. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 24, 2020 14:18:12 GMT -5
I originally made one point. I spoke again to that in the post above, saying corruption is a transaction. An attempt to corrupt is not corruption. Trump outright said he wanted to rush confirmation so that on voting day there will be nine justices who can rule on the question of illegal ballots. IOW, he's saying he's picking someone who will support his side of the question, IOW, he's asking for loyalty, IOW, I will pick you if you favor me. That's just how Trump has operated for 4 years, that's what the Impeachment was about. If you have no problem with that from the President of the United States, I'm sure I can't convince you otherwise. I'm just surprised, I would never have pictured you as a Trump supporter. Corruption would enter if the new Justice supported Trump, picked Trump in a decision, as a trade. I don't think that could ever be determined, as the reason for the decision could be a matter of conscience, held only in the mind of the new Justice. (She could give other ample public reasons for her decision). The film A Man For All Seasons came to mind. First, there is the example of More teaching Richard about bribery and corruption. Second (spoiler alert) Sir Thomas More would not support the divorce (annulment) of King Henry VIII. But he perfectly new the law, and would tell no one his reason of not supporting the King, not telling wife or daughter, no one. He was explaining why to his daughter. Hypothetically, seemed very innocent, if you were to say such-n-such, in public, they can cut my head off. So it took Richard, lying, perjuring himself, also a seemingly quite innocent remark he said he overheard More say, but he did lie in court, and they cut Sir Thomas More's head off. (Quite strikingly, after he was sentenced, he said, since you are going to cut my head off, I might as well give you my view of the King's divorce...). The other stuff, I may think on, make a list, may come back. But basically, Trump is an ignorant fool, despicable. His non-response to COVID-19 shows this in a nutshell. Interestingly, I would recommend the 3rd program of the series Hacking the Mind, on PBS tonight. First two, two of the best things ever on TV, explaining how we operate on autopilot. Well, allow me to point out that although you didn't answer my question directly, you indicated that you do have a negative ad-hominin opinion of Trump as a person. I understand that, but in my opinion, the only difference in this regard of character between him and any of the prior 5 Presidents is his candor about his self-image, rather than resorting to the opposite: obfuscation of false modesty and a theater of decorum, even as they presided over policy making overtly hostile to the majority of the American populace. Please note that "Trump supporter" is exactly the root of political violence: depersonalizing people in the abstract and reducing them to an opinion. Were you conscious of how I was the one who told you from the outset that I had no interest in changing your mind, as you wrote to me, that you have no interest, in changing mine? My interest here has been in WIBIGO. It's notable to me that in describing your perception of the corruption - my original interest here - you led yourself into an analysis that put it into a wider perspective. Thank you, for that candor. Today in The Atlantic there is an article about President Trump planning to subvert the election. He has zero plans to concede under any circumstances. He has his staff researching ways to get around the vote. I didn't know the following until about 45 minutes ago (or forgot it), but the Constitution does not say that voters in a state picks the electoral vote. The Constitution calls for the state legislatures to pick electoral votes. At some point state legislatures chose to let the popular vote in a state, decide the electoral vote. There was a challenge to this in an election with Ulysses S Grant, and both candidates were set to be inaugurated. So, the article (I haven't read it yet, just have seen 2 reports on it, so far) says PDJT is planning not-to-lose (my words). He plans to ask state legislatures, in swing states, to award him their electoral votes regardless of the popular vote. That says everything. www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2020/09/2020-election-trump-barton-gellman/616457/The actual article, which will appear as a cover story in November, can be accessed by a link in the article above. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 24, 2020 14:56:36 GMT -5
Well, allow me to point out that although you didn't answer my question directly, you indicated that you do have a negative ad-hominin opinion of Trump as a person. I understand that, but in my opinion, the only difference in this regard of character between him and any of the prior 5 Presidents is his candor about his self-image, rather than resorting to the opposite: obfuscation of false modesty and a theater of decorum, even as they presided over policy making overtly hostile to the majority of the American populace. Please note that "Trump supporter" is exactly the root of political violence: depersonalizing people in the abstract and reducing them to an opinion. Were you conscious of how I was the one who told you from the outset that I had no interest in changing your mind, as you wrote to me, that you have no interest, in changing mine? My interest here has been in WIBIGO. It's notable to me that in describing your perception of the corruption - my original interest here - you led yourself into an analysis that put it into a wider perspective. Thank you, for that candor. Today in The Atlantic there is an article about President Trump planning to subvert the election. He has zero plans to concede under any circumstances. He has his staff researching ways to get around the vote. I didn't know the following until about 45 minutes ago (or forgot it), but the Constitution does not say that voters in a state picks the electoral vote. The Constitution calls for the state legislatures to pick electoral votes. At some point state legislatures chose to let the popular vote in a state, decide the electoral vote. There was a challenge to this in an election with Ulysses S Grant, and both candidates were set to be inaugurated. So, the article (I haven't read it yet, just have seen 2 reports on it, so far) says PDJT is planning not-to-lose (my words). He plans to ask state legislatures, in swing states, to award him their electoral votes regardless of the popular vote. That says everything. www.theatlantic.com/newsletters/archive/2020/09/2020-election-trump-barton-gellman/616457/The actual article, which will appear as a cover story in November, can be accessed by a link in the article above. The last Atlantic story about Trump calling soldiers loser's and sucker's, which was based on an anonymous source, has since been thoroughly discredited. As for trying to directly influence the electoral college, this is something the Democrats have been considering for months now: Bezos owns the Washington Post, and Jobs' widow owns the Atlantic. Who is it, exactly that wants you to think that Trump is the one who will contest the election results, even before they happen, and why? Several Democrats have already come out and stated, and have been quoted as stating, that this is their intention. I read the Atlantic article, and just as with the previous one about the WWI memorial trip, the sources are anonymous. The Times article is the same, but at least it's from a source with an editorial board hostile to Trump, and friendly to Biden. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Sept 24, 2020 14:57:08 GMT -5
Is it Trump that's trying to cultivate that divide, or the one's that oppose him? are you seriously gonna try to muddy the waters with bothsidesism for every political question?  The obvious answer to the question is anything but bothsideism. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Sept 24, 2020 14:59:01 GMT -5
I can't imagine where you're coming from. It seems pretty far out there to me. The truth is we're sitting on a powder keg and this fool is lighting matches. If this thing blows up there'll be no winners only losers. I know he has some adolescent fantasy about being a military genius. He's not. He's a fool, a dangerous fool. If you don't see that then there's nothing more to say. We're both wasting our time. You can have the last word. I'm moving on to something nondual. Yes, you are both too far apart. There's no common ground. And as long as that doesn't change, you are wasting your time. I'm a fan of giving credit where credit is due. And I think that's exactly what's missing in political discussions these days. So, I'd say to you (SDP, Zeniac, Laffy), try to find at least 5 characteristics/accomplishments of the other side that are noteworthy and admirable. Let's see if you can find some common ground. Because, once we've started painting the other side as subhuman or loopy, we basically shut out any kind of rational argument. It's a bit sad that the news these days is mostly just a combination of mind reading sold as facts and emotions sold as arguments. So people probably got used to that kind of discourse as some kind of new standard. But it's actually straight from the political playbook. Just take a look at this: Does this sound familiar (especially rule #13)? I have stated previously, I voted for Trump in 2016. Most of that was on the basis of anybody but Hillary. Also a major factor was the choosing of Supreme Court Justices. I have never regretted that decision, made then. But that was then, this is now. + #1: Strong defense of Israel, which includes moving the embassy to Jerusalem. + #2: Choosing two conservative Supreme Court Justices, plus what will be a 3rd. minus: The China trade negotiations. I don't think he knows enough about international trade to know what he's doing (or what he did). minus: Coronavirus. We should have had central control on decisions made, not control by 50 (states). Trump should have backed the scientific experts, not cut the feet out under them. Dr. Brix has just about had enough of his nonsense. + #3: The economy. He has led the charge on the economy. But this may be as much a psychological response as much as know-how. He did bring some jobs back. He seems not to understand there is a difference between the economy and the stock market. minus: He is obviously a bigot, but he may not be aware this is the case. + #4: Choosing numerous conservative federal judges, of course with Senate help. minus: He thinks he is smarter than most anybody, always the smartest one in the room. "I know more than the generals". (nonsense). I know more than the doctors. (nonsense). He should know his own limitations and recognize when someone knows more about a subject than he. He lives by his second gut-brain, his instincts. He is crashing and burning by doing so. minus: No healthcare plan to replace ACA. McCain saved ACA. With a 6-3 court ACA will probably come down. If nothing is there to replace it, colossal mess. We need a single payer system to save healthcare. Rich people pay their fair share (in a National health plan), but ATST they should be able to pay for whatever healthcare they wish, IOW, pay extra for themselves. minus: He seems to think US money is his money. Example, he dismantled the committee that had a watch on International virus outbreak, merely to save money. This was a colossal error. We were caught flatfooted with Coronavirus. minus: He lies every day. Most of this is deliberate, he thinks if he says it enough, people will believe what he says. minus: He thrives on causing chaos. minus: His posturing on being a law and order candidate. I'm having trouble coming up with a + #5, probably missing something obvious. OK, + #5: Strong military support. (If I think of a + #6, I'll edit). |
|
|
|
Post by inavalan on Sept 24, 2020 14:59:49 GMT -5
For accurate predictions, I suggest to just ignore all those pollsters who predicted a HRC landslide win in 2016 - which is like 99% of all pollsters. Don't let them fool you again with statistics! I'm not worried about the polls.. it's the scared and angry white men I'm starting to wonder about You're a racist ... and sexist. |
|
The facts of the 