2020 US Presidential Election

[Born To Slay]

I want to see what these people do. They used riots and terror in the streets during the worst health crisis in the past 100 years, to boost their votes. That woman that Biden chose as VP is merely a symbol, not an experienced, top level leader worthy of her position, and she's going to need a lot of help if Biden can't function and the job defaults to her. They'll probably call in the heavy hitters such as Obama, Clinton, Pelosi, etc. to run things and make important decisions, until she's out.

She has more experience than Obama did when he became President and she's only the VP. They were both Senators for 4 years plus she had being the AG of a state and being DA of a major city under her belt. Even if you question how she got those jobs, and I'm sure you'll write a book about how she drank jizz for them, she got the jobs, and the state and city didn't fall apart.

So please, spare us this crap about how inexperienced she is to be POTUS. She had more experience than most recent Presidents and she's not even the damn President yet.

 

[FGG]

She has more experience than Obama did when he became President and she's only the VP. They were both Senators for 4 years plus she had being the AG of a state and being DA of a major city under her belt. Even if you question how she got those jobs, and I'm sure you'll write a book about how she drank jizz for them, she got the jobs, and the state and city didn't fall apart.

So please, spare us this crap about how inexperienced she is to be POTUS. She had more experience than most recent Presidents and she's not even the damn President yet.

It's weird considering Trump's lack of political experience was actually celebrated.

 

[Born To Slay]

It's weird considering Trump's lack of political experience was actually celebrated.

Gee, I wonder what the difference between the two is...

 

[Luman]

The thing that many people don't get is that a guy like Trump will make things better, if you give him some slack and look the other way, most of the time. Before he was President, he'd dealt with corrupt labor unions, billionaire real estate moguls (which is what he is), the casino business (you KNOW that is rough), and all sorts of other things. He made it worth my while to tolerate him, and the records show he was successful with the economy, jobs and reducing unemployment - these are important issues. He's not a goody two-shoes, but he does the right thing enough to excuse that.

 

[Luman]

She has more experience than Obama did when he became President and she's only the VP. They were both Senators for 4 years plus she had being the AG of a state and being DA of a major city under her belt. Even if you question how she got those jobs, and I'm sure you'll write a book about how she drank jizz for them, she got the jobs, and the state and city didn't fall apart.

So please, spare us this crap about how inexperienced she is to be POTUS. She had more experience than most recent Presidents and she's not even the damn President yet.

She was GIVEN everything in her life, took Affirmative Action for school, you already know about the way she got those first important positions in her political career, and I do not believe I made any explicitly filthy remarks which you are doing. Anybody who locked people up for marijuana, and gave them a criminal record, is a louse, in my book. This is what she did, plus a whole lot more, including protecting cops charged with abusive behavior. This is from a woman who was molly-coddled her whole life. By the way, do you consider her to be a "feminist"?

 

[Born To Slay]

She was GIVEN everything in her life, took Affirmative Action for school, you already know about the way she got those first important positions in her political career, and I do not believe I made any explicitly filthy remarks which you are doing. Anybody who locked people up for marijuana, and gave them a criminal record, is a louse, in my book, and this is what she did, plus a whole lot more, including protecting cops charged with abusive behavior. By the way, do you consider her to be a "feminist"?

She was elected to the Senate by the people of California. She was appointed to be AG the same way all other AGs are appointed. That's just as good as anyone else. Donald Trump was given everything by his father and his famous name. The same criticism applies to him. And a lot of other people in Washington.

Donald Trump isn't for the legalization of marijuana, why is he okay in your book? If this is such a disqualifying issue for you, why aren't you after him? How many people are in federal prison for marijuana crimes that haven't been pardoned, he could pardon them right now, so he's keeping them locked up.

And finally, yes she meets the textbook definition of a feminist, which is someone that supports equal rights of the sexes. Anything else she has or hasn't done in her own career is irrelevant to that.

The thing that many people don't get is that a guy like Trump will make things better, if you give him some slack and look the other way, most of the time. Before he was President, he'd dealt with corrupt labor unions, billionaire real estate moguls (which is what he is), the casino business (you KNOW that is rough), and all sorts of other things. He made it worth my while to tolerate him, and the records show he was successful with the economy, jobs and reducing unemployment - these are important issues. He's not a goody two-shoes, but he does the right thing enough to excuse that.

The unemployment rate fell by 1.2 percent between his election and February 2020. How does he get credit for the unemployment and not Obama who actually saw the unemployment rate fall substantially during his tenure?

 

[Juan]

That woman that Biden chose as VP is merely a symbol, not an experienced, top level leader worthy of her position, and she's going to need a lot of help if Biden can't function and the job defaults to her.

The US had an actor for President in the past, the US made do with George Bush and also with the platinum blonde clown...

I think Kamala Harris will manage ;-)

 

[Lane]

in Bush V Gore, that was an insanely close election that literally came down to a few hundred votes in a couple districts. 2020 wasn't like that, and yet a serious effort to undermine democracy was made.

@linearb -- That serious effort actually succeeded! Most people are unaware that Republican operatives in Florida government undertook a massive voter purge prior to the 2000 election. As I recall, about 125K names were purged. Would it surprise anybody that most of the people purged were from minority neighborhoods? That probably cost Gore tens of thousands of votes, more than enough to easily offset Bush's 500+ margin of victory.

Serious efforts have been undertaken to disrupt our democracy for almost the entirety of the history of the U.S. A notable case is the 2000 election that had SCOTUS taking up a state election issue that most legal scholars at the time said was highly unlikely. A second notable case was SCOTUS in 2013 gutting key provisions of the Voting Rights Act. It doesn't surprise me that Trump believed SCOTUS would step in again on his behalf this past week.

Recent upticks in creative ways to upend fair voting now include things like voter roll purges, closing of poll stations in minority districts, shorter hours at poll stations, fewer dropboxes, excessive voter ID requirements, campaigns against mail in voting, etc. -- My understanding is that people in Texas can register to vote with a gun license, but can't with a student ID. Hmmm...

A functioning democracy is a rare thing in human history, and is incredibly fragile. In a sense, it operates on a broad range of gentleman's/gentlewoman's agreements on how it should function. It only takes someone like a Trump with only a touch more competence than him to make it all unravel in a hurry. What if the election had actually been close? What if there were a handful of documented cases of voter fraud, instead of there being zero? -- So many what if's.

I'm curious if anyone else finds it almost incomprehensible that over half the Republicans in the House of Representatives signed onto the corrupt Texas attorney general's bizarre attempt this past week to contest the voting procedures in states other than Texas. Change a few parameters surrounding this latest attempt to undermine our democracy, and it could very well succeed in the future. Just a little tweak here or there, and we're in the midst of authoritarian (Republican) rule. As opposed to wannabe authoritarian Republican rule relentlessly nipping at the edges of our current functioning (but fragile) democracy.

 

[aot]

She was GIVEN everything in her life,

So was Donald Trump.

 

[Zugzug]

I'm curious if anyone else finds it almost incomprehensible that over half the Republicans in the House of Representatives signed onto the corrupt Texas attorney general's bizarre attempt this past week to contest the voting procedures in states other than Texas.

I find the Republican's subservience to Trump over the past 4 years more incomprehensible than I do that this is happening as an isolated event. It's basically an expected outcome in this space.

 

[Lane]

I always appreciate it when I can find a bit of humor in some of the election drama playing out. The following is from an article on the Supreme Court rejecting that Texas challenge to the election results. I got a couple good chuckles out of it.

Not long after, Allen West, a former congressman and the chairman of the Texas Republican Party, slashed at the Supreme Court and said in a statement that hinted at secession that "perhaps law-abiding states should bond together and form a union of states that will abide by the Constitution."

Representative Adam Kinzinger, Republican of Illinois, called on the Texas G.O.P. to retract the statement and fire Mr. West. "My guy Abraham Lincoln and the Union soldiers already told you no," Mr. Kinzinger wrote on Twitter.​

 

[GlennS]

The following is from an article on the Supreme Court rejecting that Texas challenge to the election results. I got a couple good chuckles out of it.

Not long after, Allen West, a former congressman and the chairman of the Texas Republican Party, slashed at the Supreme Court and said in a statement that hinted at secession that "perhaps law-abiding states should bond together and form a union of states that will abide by the Constitution."​

There shouldn't just be chuckles.

This isn't over as long as 70+ million voters continue to believe Trump won and with the backing of a bunch of spineless legislators on Capitol Hill.

There are still a series of parliamentary steps just to finalize the election results and pave the way for Biden to swear in, enough steps for those legislators to sabotage if they want to up the ante to that extent.

Even if Biden swears in there are all sorts of chaos that can follow. It may not even require Trump's encouragement at this point. 70+ million angry voters can become quite creative.

There is only one way to make this end and that is for Trump to concede. Anything short of that and the country will continue to be distracted and dragged down by this endless butthurt tantrum.

 

[GlennS]

And the riots have begun. We'll see how much this escalates.

Trump supporters rally against election outcome as Proud Boys and Antifa face off

 

[Luman]

I always appreciate it when I can find a bit of humor in some of the election drama playing out. The following is from an article on the Supreme Court rejecting that Texas challenge to the election results. I got a couple good chuckles out of it.

Not long after, Allen West, a former congressman and the chairman of the Texas Republican Party, slashed at the Supreme Court and said in a statement that hinted at secession that "perhaps law-abiding states should bond together and form a union of states that will abide by the Constitution."

Representative Adam Kinzinger, Republican of Illinois, called on the Texas G.O.P. to retract the statement and fire Mr. West. "My guy Abraham Lincoln and the Union soldiers already told you no," Mr. Kinzinger wrote on Twitter.​

We had the chance to let them go, in the 19th Century, and Lincoln did not do the right thing.

 

[linearb]

@linearb -- That serious effort actually succeeded! Most people are unaware that Republican operatives in Florida government undertook a massive voter purge prior to the 2000 election. As I recall, about 125K names were purged. Would it surprise anybody that most of the people purged were from minority neighborhoods? That probably cost Gore tens of thousands of votes, more than enough to easily offset Bush's 500+ margin of victory.

Yeah, this is definitely another aspect to this which has been omnipresent since gerrymandering really took off. I am inclined to agree with you: given the margin, the deliberate disenfranchisement that we know occurred probably did tip the scale. And I think that's undemocratic, oligarchical, immoral, and, you know, probably illegal, dependent on finding someone to take jurisdiction on it.

I think 2016 was in some ways an apex of some of what 2000 set in motion. But, the main differences I see here, come down to competence. Trump started his first term surrounded by reasonably intelligent people, and he mostly alienated them and replaced them with a series of increasingly dumb yes men. Can you imagine what this administration might have pulled off behind the veil of COVID-19 and BLM protests if someone as calculating and coldly brilliant as Dick Cheney had been in control?

I'm curious if anyone else finds it almost incomprehensible that over half the Republicans in the House of Representatives signed onto the corrupt Texas attorney general's bizarre attempt this past week to contest the voting procedures in states other than Texas.

I'd go beyond "incomprehensible" and call it "a naked effort to undermine public confidence in a properly and legal election, the likes of which have not been seen since 1868". I believe that lawyers who signed on to this nonsense probably out to be disbarred, and while it will never happen, I believe that NJ Rep Bill Pascrell's demand that the House lawmakers who signed on to this not be seated, based on somewhat esoteric Reconstruction-era regs.

The fact that elected reps are talking about that, makes me think that some Overton window shifts have occurred, but if it goes anywhere useful... I'll be surprised.

 

[Tweedleman]

PSA: It's my turn to remind everyone that Kamala Harris has sex often, and is in favour of having control over her own vagina.

 

[Luman]

Trump should have gotten the Time Man of the Year award for brokering the Middle East peace deals, something that no previous president, or other world leader, has been able to do. Instead, they gave Person of the Year to Biden and what's her name, who haven't even been sworn in yet, and have done absolutely nothing.

 

[morgothaod]

I hate politics and religion.

 

[aot]

Trump should have gotten the Time Man of the Year award for brokering the Middle East peace deals, something that no previous president, or other world leader, has been able to do. Instead, they gave Person of the Year to Biden and what's her name, who haven't even been sworn in yet, and have done absolutely nothing.

1: It's "Person of the Year", and has been so since 1999. Not "Man."

2: It's more about influence than positive reception.

3: Her name is Kamala Harris, which you already know.

 

[Zugzug]

PSA: It's my turn to remind everyone that Kamala Harris has sex often, and is in favour of having control over her own vagina.

lol the funny part is Kamala probably has a pretty standard sexual history. He is literally triggered by a female having a relationship.

 

[Luman]

lol the funny part is Kamala probably has a pretty standard sexual history. He is literally triggered by a female having a relationship.

Are you saying that it is "standard" for most young women in their 20's, to sleep with men who are older than their father, for the purpose of obtaining jobs, and support, in their chosen career? Is this not a rather nasty insult, to the vast majority of working women everywhere?

 

[Lane]

"a naked effort to undermine public confidence in a properly and legal election

@linearb -- Just ran across the following article which touches on what you wrote. It's words of wisdom seem especially poignant after four years of a U.S. President doing everything he can think of to sew distrust in his followers toward many institutions that are the bedrocks of a healthily functioning democracy.

The 10 most important things I've learned about trust over my 100 years

George P. Shultz is a former U.S. secretary of labor, treasury and state, and was director of the Office of Management and Budget. He is a distinguished fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution.

Dec. 13 marks my turning 100 years young. I've learned much over that time, but looking back, I'm struck that there is one lesson I learned early and then relearned over and over: Trust is the coin of the realm. When trust was in the room, whatever room that was — the family room, the schoolroom, the locker room, the office room, the government room or the military room — good things happened. When trust was not in the room, good things did not happen. Everything else is details.

There are countless examples of how that lesson was brought home to me across the past century, but here are 10 of the most important...​

 

[Zugzug]

Are you saying that it is "standard" for most young women in their 20's, to sleep with men who are older than their father, for the purpose of obtaining jobs, and support, in their chosen career? Is this not an insult, to the vast majority of working women everywhere?

I'm saying it's "standard" to not give a fuck what two consenting adults do with their free time. The rest of your quote is just misogynistic malarkey.

If you truly believe that holding positions as senator, VP, California state AG, and San Francisco DA is some big knock on women, I don't know what to tell you. You know those are actual jobs, right? It's not like Kamala, for decades, just shows up and spreads her legs and takes a nap. These are intellectual positions.

It's amazing that I find myself defending Kamala Harris to the death. I'm not even a big fan, frankly.

 

[Luman]

1: It's "Person Of The Year", and has been so since 1999. Not "Man."

2: It's more about influence than postitve reception.

3. Her name is Kamala Harris, which you already know.

How can two people be named "Person of the Year"?

 

[Born To Slay]

Trump should have gotten the Time Man of the Year award for brokering the Middle East peace deals, something that no previous president, or other world leader, has been able to do. Instead, they gave Person of the Year to Biden and what's her name, who haven't even been sworn in yet, and have done absolutely nothing.

Yeah, the first guy to lose reelection in 3 decades is definitely worthy of such a title.

 

[FGG]

Are you saying that it is "standard" for most young women in their 20's, to sleep with men who are older than their father, for the purpose of obtaining jobs, and support, in their chosen career? Is this not a rather nasty insult, to the vast majority of working women everywhere?

I still find it incredible that you are *more* concerned with a consensual relationship where someone helped their (actually qualified) lover out because they could (this happens all the time, nepotism is extremely common) than Trump having (credible enough for the courts to request DNA samples in at least one case) sexual assault allegations against him.

You even suggested that a gift of a Tiffany tennis bracelet implies consent, so Trump couldn't rape, since "most women are gold diggers" anyway. So it's fine for Trump to assault women if he pre-pays for consent with jewelry but if someone gets a promotion out of it, they are inexcusable whore-ific?

Let me ask you, do you think Melania solely got an "Einstein visa" on her merits and it is just a coincidence she got one over millions of others while dating Trump and using his connections? And btw, there is a 24 year age gap between them so he certainly could have been her father by your own metric. Just to be clear, I don't blame her at all for using her connections, just pointing out the blatant hypocrisy.

 

[Luman]

I'm saying it's "standard" to not give a fuck what two consenting adults do with their free time. The rest of your quote is just misogynistic malarkey.

If you truly believe that holding positions as senator, VP, California state AG, and San Francisco DA is some big knock on women, I don't know what to tell you. You know those are actual jobs, right? It's not like Kamala, for decades, just shows up and spreads her legs and takes a nap. These are intellectual positions.

It's amazing that I find myself defending Kamala Harris to the death. I'm not even a big fan, frankly.

You are wrong that is it a "knock on women" to bring up the fact that she had sex to obtain public service jobs, and future help in elections. If the following were true, it would also be wrong:

Heterosexual man has sex with a very politically powerful woman to obtain government jobs and future influence in his political career.

Lesbian woman has sex with a very politically powerful woman to obtain government jobs and future influence in her political career.

Gay male has sex with a very politically powerful man to obtain government jobs and future influence in his political career.

You can include the words "much older" for the men and women who wield the power, in the above examples.

 

[Luman]

I still find it incredible that you are *more* concerned with a consensual relationship where someone helped their (actually qualified) lover out because they could (this happens all the time, nepotism is extremely common) than Trump having (credible enough for the courts to request DNA samples in at least one case) sexual assault allegations against him.

You even suggested that a gift of a Tiffany tennis bracelet implies consent, so Trump couldn't rape, since "most women are gold diggers" anyway. So it's fine for Trump to assault women if he pre-pays for consent with jewelry but if someone gets a promotion out of it, they are inexcusable whore-ific?

Let me ask you, do you think Melania solely got an "Einstein visa" on her merits and it is just a coincidence she got one over millions of others while dating Trump and using his connections? And btw, there is a 24 year age gap between them so he certainly could have been her father by your own metric. Just to be clear, I don't blame her at all for using her connections, just pointing out the blatant hypocrisy.

Comparing a fixed visa for Melania, which may or may not have happened, to the case of a VP, who could easily become President, second in charge of 335 million American people, is a pretty desperate attempt to defend your position. As for claims against Trump of a sexual nature, Clinton had actual proof that he was having sex with a young female intern, in the White House, and nothing happened. If Trump raped somebody, he should be kicked out. So far, this has not been shown to have happened. Harris' affair, and the appointments that she obtained, and election help later, are facts which are not disputed.

We are talking about somebody who is next in line to becoming the most powerful person in the United States. Maybe I'm just not getting it, and it's OK to give her a pass - after all, who cares about a little hanky panky that resulted in her becoming the VP of a very large, powerful nation? When they said, "Anybody but Trump", they certainly meant it, lol.

 

[Zugzug]

You are wrong that is it a "knock on women" to bring up the fact that she had sex to obtain public service jobs, and future help in elections. If the following were true, it would also be wrong:

Heterosexual man has sex with a woman to obtain government jobs and future influence in his political career.

Lesbian woman has sex with a woman to obtain government jobs and future influence in her political career.

Gay male has sex with a man to obtain government jobs and future influence in his political career.

You can include the words "much older" for the men and women who wield the power, in the above examples.

You really want to die on this hill. What's extremely funny to me is that you genuinely don't understand what the sexist part is.

Let me explain it to you. Everything that you have said involves a ton of sexist assumptions. Take Kamala's relationship with Willie Brown. You picture some dumb woman going up to him, spreading her legs, and saying "I'm totally unqualified. But I will give you sex if you give me a high ranking government job."

Did it ever cross your mind that maybe Willie Brown needed her just as much, if not more, than she needed him? Or that maybe Willie Brown wanted to have sex with her, but also thought she was qualified for the job? Or -- and I know this is a crazy idea to the tough Trump types who claim to not have feelings while crying victim all day -- maybe he had feelings for her?

Why would Willie Brown be sitting there thinking, "this girl is as dumb as a rock, but I'll put my ass on the line and give her a super important political position because I'm horny?"

The sexist part is that all of your assertions lack gray area and favor the man, without even knowing either of them. That's the definition of sexist.

And let's say the very worst case happened. That Willie Brown really did think she was incredibly stupid, but followed his sexual urges over his brain. She still held really high level, difficult jobs and kept ascending. What the hell do you think a DA does? Or a State AG? Or a Senator? Or a Presidential candidate? Or a VP?

It's so funny to me how triggered Trump supporters get when people call them racists and sexists. You are in a thread where no one gives a damn about the fact that Kamala is a black woman. People are critical of her record. And yet you insert identity politics into the discussion. By the way, Ben Shapiro does this all the time. He'll find a story of someone saying "as a black woman, ...." Then he'll make an hour long episode on his show about identity politics, how pervasive it is, and how triggered everyone else is.

You're like a professional projector. And worst of all, you have the nerve to say these things while supporting Donald fucking Trump, the king of inheriting everything and earning practically nothing.

Good bye. Ignore. I will whisper with my cat for better conversation.

 

[Born To Slay]

You are wrong that is it a "knock on women" to bring up the fact that she had sex to obtain public service jobs, and future help in elections. If the following were true, it would also be wrong:

Heterosexual man has sex with a very politically powerful woman to obtain government jobs and future influence in his political career.

Lesbian woman has sex with a very politically powerful woman to obtain government jobs and future influence in her political career.

Gay male has sex with a very politically powerful man to obtain government jobs and future influence in his political career.

You can include the words "much older" for the men and women who wield the power, in the above examples.

A lot of people buy their way into government with campaign contributions. Want to tell me why that's any better than sex? And if it's not, why is Kamala any worse than anyone else?