The 2020 General Election Thread

[jamil]

Isn't that absolutely dangerous? Tweets that can drop the market 500+ points, etc. His words, even when he walks it back, affect more people than I think he realizes. That's scary.

Only if you’re bat**** crazy. Most people recognize bull**** when they hear it.

The people who tend not to give charitable interpretations seem to protest more than warranted. I’d rather he would just stop tweeting stuff that makes him sound stupid. But TDSers look for the worst interpretation they can imagine for every word.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

Where and when did I say that the debate should be changed? If trump is fine and tests negative, why not show up to the town hall debate? He can't waste his time with a virtual debate? In an election with stakes like this one, wouldn't he want to be in the public eye and "own the libs?"

why do a virtual debate if he can do it in person? He already said he wants to debate like it was already decided to. Joe is the one wanting to change it. If he trusts the experts, why not debate like normal?

 

[Hatin Since 87]

Only if you’re bat**** crazy. Most people recognize bull**** when they hear it.

The people who tend not to give charitable interpretations seem to protest more than warranted. I’d rather he would just stop tweeting stuff that makes him sound stupid. But TDSers look for the worst interpretation they can imagine for every word.

If our entire stock market rests on a single tweet then we have some real morons in positions they shouldn’t be.

 

[nightgaunt]

why do a virtual debate if he can do it in person? He already said he wants to debate like it was already decided to. Joe is the one wanting to change it. If he trusts the experts, why not debate like normal?

Biden didn't want the format change, it was the debate commission that ruled it a virtual debate

 

[BugI02]

Pelosi is going to make a bid to remove Trump under the 25th Amendment tomorrow: https://thehill.com/homenews/house/520191-pelosi-were-going-to-be-talking-about-25th-amendment

A quick reading of section 4 of the 25th would seem to indicate that they need the vice president and a majority of the cabinet or of whatever kangaroo court Pelosi tries to whip up, as well as a 2/3s majority of both chambers to make that stick. It might be a delaying tactic on the ACB nomination, but sets out pretty tight time standards - written declaration of incapacity within 4 days of taking up the issue, congress meets within 48 hours if not in session or immediately if in session to deliberate, 21 days of deliberation and then a vote. Seems like they might think they can delay the SCOTUS vote, but at most for 27 days - still not enough to prevent seating ACB

Chip, is there some deadline from the start of the court's session after which an associate justice wouldn't be able to participate, such as missing the start of testimony in a case? Could it all be a ploy to preserve a 4-4 court to decide the contested election? I believe a deadlocked SCOTUS allows a lower court ruling to stand

 

[OakRiver]

Or you could, you know, follow debate rules.

The debate rules that were agreed in advance, or the ones that the candidates were informed of without consultation 20 minutes before the announcement?

 

[jamil]

A quick reading of section 4 of the 25th would seem to indicate that they need the vice president and a majority of the cabinet or of whatever kangaroo court Pelosi tries to whip up, as well as a 2/3s majority of both chambers to make that stick. It might be a delaying tactic on the ACB nomination, but sets out pretty tight time standards - written declaration of incapacity within 4 days of taking up the issue, congress meets within 48 hours if not in session or immediately if in session to deliberate, 21 days of deliberation and then a vote. Seems like they might think they can delay the SCOTUS vote, but at most for 27 days - still not enough to prevent seating ACB

Chip, is there some deadline from the start of the court's session after which an associate justice wouldn't be able to participate, such as missing the start of testimony in a case? Could it all be a ploy to preserve a 4-4 court to decide the contested election? I believe a deadlocked SCOTUS allows a lower court ruling to stand

It’s a stunt to try to sway people’s opinions before the election.

 

[BugI02]

Proof. Not your assertion. Cite it or admit you are wrong.

Do your work for you or withdraw the stipulation? False dichotomy, as well as transparent delaying action (delaying admitting you're wrong)

 

[Hatin Since 87]

Biden didn't want the format change, it was the debate commission that ruled it a virtual debate

Biden’s team is the team defending the format change LOL. One guy is saying no, we can do a normal debate like we agreed to do in June, and the other is saying no let’s change it. This isn’t difficult

 

[Hatin Since 87]

The debate rules that were agreed in advance, or the ones that the candidates were informed of without consultation 20 minutes before the announcement?

He doesn’t understand. That’s the whole issue. The experts say he’s cleared. There’s no reason to change the preset rules that were agreed upon by both parties. Either do them like they agreed to, or don’t do them. Simple.

 

[nightgaunt]

Biden’s team is the team defending the format change LOL. One guy is saying no, we can do a normal debate like we agreed to do in June, and the other is saying no let’s change it. This isn’t difficult

Again, a lot has changed since June. As my previous post mentioned, trump and aides testing positive approx. a week before the scheduled in person debate. Trump can take it up with the debate commission if he's so hard-up to do it in person.

 

[BugI02]

Have you googled it? There are lots of stories out there saying that the CIA Director, Brennan, briefed the Obama Administration about Hillary's plan to use intelligence community to drum up the russian collusion in an attempt to take the pressure off of her email scandal.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/biden-clinton-obama-trump-russia-collusion-hoax-sen-tom-cotton
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattv...bama-briefed-on-clintonrussia-antics-n2577176
https://nypost.com/2020/09/29/cia-t...nton-conjured-trump-russia-scandal-spy-chief/

There are TONS of hits out there. Of course everyone is denying everything. But it's not something everyone else isn't also saying

It goes even further back than that. It is either Comey's written notes or Strzok's on the January 5th meeting with Obama, Biden, Yates etc that flag the VP as putting forth the original 25th amendment idea. That is hardly the work of an innoceny bystander

Alpo has the same standards of proof as any Democrat. Credulously believe any and all claims of badness by Trump, claim nothing has been proven about claims of badness by Biden (or Hunter or Obama or Yates or Comey or Strzok or etc etc)

It's the Al Capone defense, many indictments, no convictions (yet)

 

[PaulF]

Thanks. That’s more how they came up with the number than anything tho. And even in the article it points out trump and fauci said that, so I’m sure trump was repeating what he was told from his experts. So if he was open about it being possibly 2 million deaths, it doesn’t seem like he downplayed it much.

Let's ask him.

"I wanted to always play it down. I still like playing it down..."

 

[Hatin Since 87]

Again, a lot has changed since June. As my previous post mentioned, trump and aides testing positive approx. a week before the scheduled in person debate. Trump can take it up with the debate commission if he's so hard-up to do it in person.

A week before the debate? The debates the 15th. Saturday will be 10 days since confirmed, AGAIN, THATS WHY THE EXPERTS ARE CLEARING HIM. It will have been 15 days since his confirmed diagnosis.

And you saying trump can take it up with the commission if he doesn’t like the change isn’t proving your guy isn’t wanting the change. You can’t change the rules and call the other guy a coward when he says no we aren’t changing the rules. And trump is taking it up with the commission, he said this is the agreed rules, the “contract” if you will, and if you breach that contract I’m not doing it. Common sense (well, for most I guess).

 

[Hatin Since 87]

Let's ask him.

Good. I’m glad you wanna play.

He says he downplayed it, but he also told the public there’s a possibility 2 million could die if infected? So how did he downplay it, exactly? Please give examples of his downplaying it.

 

[jamil]

Biden’s team is the team defending the format change LOL. One guy is saying no, we can do a normal debate like we agreed to do in June, and the other is saying no let’s change it. This isn’t difficult

This is a change then from what Biden's team said earlier. They had been saying that they would be willing to change if Trump’s illness prevented him, but would be fine with doing the debate as planned.

 

[Hatin Since 87]

This is a change then from what Biden's team said earlier. They had been saying that they would be willing to change if Trump’s illness prevented him, but would be fine with doing the debate as planned.

Trump team offered to delay the October 15th and October 22nd debates, so they could do them in person like normal instead of virtual debates. Biden says no, not delaying the dates, only want to do the October 22 debate.

So now they aren’t even wanting to do the October 15 debate. Now they wanna limit it to 1 more debate.


But trump is the coward

 

[BugI02]

Who is more at fault: the person who lies or the person who, knowing it is a lie, repeats it?

I don't want to put you on ignore, but if you are going to carry on, would you be so kind as to put the relevant passage in bold text? . Thanking you in advance.

Strange question for a Democrat to bring up

Both are knowingly lying, so tie score on the sin meter

 

[jamil]

Again, a lot has changed since June. As my previous post mentioned, trump and aides testing positive approx. a week before the scheduled in person debate. Trump can take it up with the debate commission if he's so hard-up to do it in person.

It sounds like you want the change. Trump is supposedly negative now. Cleared to go. Get on with the program.

 

[OakRiver]

Good. I’m glad you wanna play.

He says he downplayed it, but he also told the public there’s a possibility 2 million could die if infected? So how did he downplay it, exactly? Please give examples of his downplaying it.

Also, look at the date of the quote. That was right at the start of the pandemic, before we know it would truly affect us. Downplaying it until an actual, credible baseline was established is a smart play, otherwise he would have run the risk of a mass panic.