It is Over, Let's Move On     ★★UPDATED★★

  

Category:  News & Politics

By:  tig  •  2 weeks ago  •  179 comments

It is Over, Let's Move On       ★★UPDATED★★
If Trump somehow flipped WI, PA and NV he still would fall short of 270

Let's consider Trump's chances at reversing the results of this election:  

GA and NC are still outstanding.  Biden has a razor thin lead in GA and Trump is ahead in NC.   So let's be generous, assume some last minute reversal in GA, and give both to Trump.   That would bring his electoral count up to 245.

GA+NC = 245

AZ has already been called and now declared to be free of fraud.   Trump lost so AZ is out of the running.  

So we turn to the next closest states (also already called for Biden).   These are 99% (essentially done) but WI and PA both have a 0.7% difference which is close.   So let's assume a recount will flip WI for Trump.

GA+NC+WI = 255

Still not enough, that means we need to bring in the unlikely NV (2.7% Biden lead) or the close PA (0.7%) and assume a recount will flip the already called NV or PA for Trump.

GA+NC+WI+NV= 261   

NV does not move the needle enough to matter, so Trump needs to flip PA.

GA+NC+WI+PA = 275          ✓

Alternatively, we could go with MI flipping but Biden is 2.7% ahead with 99% in, so it is not even close.


So Trump must win GA and NC.   He must then flip WI and PA.

And all of these states are near complete in their official tallies.

This is done.

google-update.jpg

Biden has now won GA and Trump has won NC.   Thus revising the analysis:

With NC, Trump now has 232 electoral votes.   If he flips both WI and PA he still has only 262 electoral votes.   Even if he could flip NV he would have 268 electoral votes.

There is no path to victory, not even a hope.  

Will some continue to stubbornly defy reality?


Tags

jrDiscussion - desc
smarty_function_ntUser_is_admin: user_id parameter required
[]
 
TᵢG
1  author  TᵢG    2 weeks ago

So now what do we talk about?

 
 
 
MAGA
1.1  MAGA  replied to  TᵢG @1    2 weeks ago

Let’s not move on because it’s not over!  

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.1  author  TᵢG  replied to  MAGA @1.1    2 weeks ago

Irrational.

 
 
 
cjcold
1.1.2  cjcold  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.1    2 weeks ago

The new name really says it all.

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.1.3  Gordy327  replied to  MAGA @1.1    2 weeks ago
Let’s not move on because it’s not over!

From a mathematical and probability standpoint, yes it is over.

 
 
 
FLYNAVY1
1.1.4  FLYNAVY1  replied to  cjcold @1.1.2    2 weeks ago

A name that screams...... "Waaaaaah!".

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.1.5  Gordy327  replied to  MAGA @1.1    2 weeks ago

Trump officially lost Georgia & AZ to Biden, both states he needed to have any chance. So, you were saying?

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
1.1.6  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  MAGA @1.1    2 weeks ago

As much as I wish it was not it is. President Trump can either concede or continue to drag this out and create more animosity, hate, and discontent or just be civil and step down like he already should have. I hope he concedes as there is no possible, reasonable, or rational way he can turn this around in his favor. I am not a Biden supporter and did not vote for him but the will of the people have spoken and like it or not Joe Biden will lead this country for the next four years. We just have to make the best of it. We do have to move on one way or the other.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
1.1.7  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.1.6    2 weeks ago
President Trump can either concede or continue to drag this out and create more animosity, hate, and discontent or just be civil and step down like he already should have.

I can understand your pain, Ed. But I give you credit for being sensible. This is what has always made our democracy work. Kudos.

 
 
 
arkpdx
1.1.8  arkpdx  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.3    2 weeks ago

Gee were you saying that in 2000 and 2016? I think not

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.1.9  Gordy327  replied to  arkpdx @1.1.8    2 weeks ago

How would you know what I said back then?

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.1.10  author  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @1.1.9    2 weeks ago

Don't you just love cheap presumption in lieu of intelligent commentary?

 
 
 
Gordy327
1.1.11  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @1.1.10    2 weeks ago

Like I love skin rash, lol. But cheap presumption or other nonsense is what I've come to expect from certain individuals, as it's all they ever seem to have.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
1.1.12  Trout Giggles  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @1.1.6    one week ago

I wish I was more like you back in 2016.

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
1.2  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  TᵢG @1    2 weeks ago

Movies, music, pets, neurological disorders, kids, grandkids [for those that have them], TV shows, sports [even though my household doesn't watch them] .... there's endless possibilities. Just sayin.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
1.3  Trout Giggles  replied to  TᵢG @1    2 weeks ago
So now what do we talk about?

Fishing and beer

 
 
 
arkpdx
1.4  arkpdx  replied to  TᵢG @1    2 weeks ago

We could start saying how bad a job Biden is doing. We could also talk about how he should be impeached.

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.4.1  author  TᵢG  replied to  arkpdx @1.4    2 weeks ago
We could start saying how bad a job Biden is doing.

How, he has not yet started his role as PotUS?

We could also talk about how he should be impeached.

On what grounds?

 
 
 
arkpdx
1.4.2  arkpdx  replied to  TᵢG @1.4.1    one week ago

Neither of those reasons stopped Democrats from bringing them after Trump was elected in 2016. So why can't we discuss them now?

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.4.3  author  TᵢG  replied to  arkpdx @1.4.2    one week ago

Can you determine on your own if an action is proper or rational?   Are you seriously trying to argue that if your opponent does something then it is ipso facto proper or rational for you to do likewise?

My position is that it is wrong —and irrational— to start criticizing or speaking of impeaching a president-elect regarding the job s/he is doing before they even start the job.  

 
 
 
CB
1.4.4  CB   replied to  arkpdx @1.4.2    one week ago

Donald Trump was, is, and highly probably with be, a Trumphole until the day he departs this plane of existence. Joe Biden may be a great many things, but you don't find too many self-serving, me-me-me types, willing to do 40 year stretches of public service: as the rewards are capped.

Additionally, Donald Trump came down the escalator to announce his candidacy with an 'blazing' insult to certain portions of the citizenry. First impressions matter. So yes, we 'clocked' his brazen-ness.and watched him warily thereafter. I can only assumed he wants to be taken for what he shells out. If this "dude" wants to steamroll 'meria, he should have  been prepared for this nation to push back and 'power-wash' him accordingly!

 
 
 
CB
1.4.5  CB   replied to  TᵢG @1.4.3    one week ago

You can bet nobody believes that. Because I can think of quite a number of scenarios where some conservatives wouldn't dare 'tread' - so this is just rhetoric and selected outrage!

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.4.6  Bob Nelson  replied to  TᵢG @1.4.3    one week ago
Are you seriously trying to argue that if your opponent does something then it is ipso facto proper or rational for you to do likewise?

Of course. 

This is by far the most common justification for... anything...

Hillary did it! Obama did it. Al Gore! Pelosi. anyone.. 

The very worst (supposed, unproven) behavior... of the persons most despised... is the baseline for "acceptable behavior" by one's own champion.

No reference is made to any constant moral code. Nothing is intrinsically right or wrong.

Did Hillary ever do it? Even once? Then it's OK for my guy, full-time. 

 
 
 
CB
1.4.7  CB   replied to  Bob Nelson @1.4.6    one week ago

It is the quintessential wathaboutism: Him?,Her?, It, That? Although, if one values low standards or no standards, then whataboutisms don't 'compute,' anyway!

 
 
 
arkpdx
1.4.8  arkpdx  replied to  Bob Nelson @1.4.6    one week ago
This is by far the most common justification for... anything... Hillary did it! Obama did it. Al Gore! Pelosi.anyone.. 

Or Bush 43 did it! Bush 41 did it! Or Reagan did it! Like we kept hearing for the right years of Obama. Get off your high horse the left s no better 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.4.9  Bob Nelson  replied to  arkpdx @1.4.8    one week ago

Jeez, man! 

You're making the exact error I was talking about. Now... LISTEN !

It doesn't matter who else did "it".

If "it" is wrong... then "it" is wrong when I do it, when you do it, when anybody does it. 

 
 
 
Freewill
1.5  Freewill  replied to  TᵢG @1    2 weeks ago
So now what do we talk about?

The over/under on the transition to President Harris? jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
TᵢG
1.5.1  author  TᵢG  replied to  Freewill @1.5    2 weeks ago

(sigh)

 
 
 
Freewill
1.5.2  Freewill  replied to  TᵢG @1.5.1    one week ago
(sigh)

LOL.  Put me down for 2 years... jrSmiley_51_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
1.6  Vic Eldred  replied to  TᵢG @1    one week ago
So now what do we talk about?

There is that elephant in the room.   Many people are proud of this nation, it's values, the Constitution and the free enterprise system. They are being opposed in all of those beliefs by a powerful class which is concerned only with some injustice that some group once endured. Regardless of how Donald Trump choses to frame his loss, we shall be divided along those lines for the indefinite future.

 
 
 
Dulay
1.6.1  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.6    one week ago
They are being opposed in all of those beliefs by a powerful class which is concerned only with some injustice that some group once endured.

Yes and if those who still yearn for the days of the "Lost Cause" would just get over that shit, maybe we could unify the country again. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
1.6.2  Bob Nelson  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.6    one week ago

Jeez, Vic! 

Weasel-words, much ? 

If you mean "Black people", why don't you use those words? If you mean something else, say that. 

You can't complain about the elephant in the room, and then not talk about it. 

Y-e-e-e-e-sh! 

 
 
 
CB
1.6.3  CB   replied to  Dulay @1.6.1    one week ago

Whooooosh!

 
 
 
CB
1.6.4  CB   replied to  Vic Eldred @1.6    one week ago

Did somebody blow Donald's mind this time using the inherent power in the vote? Is that what this is about?

 
 
 
Kavika
2  Kavika     2 weeks ago

The odds of any of those combinations working are a billion to one. Trump is toast, but that is only the start of a very tough next few years. The pandemic is devastating the US with no end in sight. The economy is struggling with over 700,000 new unemployment claims this week.  Rents and mortgages are due with thousands more on the edge. The Americas and Europe are struggling with the pandemic recording record numbers. A number of our critical arms of government are in disarray (close to 70 days left until Biden takes over) 

Asia is a bright spot as most of the countries are showing good growth and have, for the moment, the virus under control. This, of course, is a big advantage for China on the world stage. 

Meanwhile, we have a president that is hiding out in the WH sending tweets about how the election is being stolen from him (absolutely no proof) as thousands of Americans are dying daily and new cases are setting a new record every day. Trump is oblivious to the suffering of millions of Americans.

Now, other than that how did you enjoy the play, Mrs. Lincoln?

How about them Cowboys?

 
 
 
Split Personality
2.1  Split Personality  replied to  Kavika @2    2 weeks ago

How about those Colts?

 
 
 
cjcold
2.1.1  cjcold  replied to  Split Personality @2.1    2 weeks ago

How about my Chiefs?!

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
2.1.2  Trout Giggles  replied to  cjcold @2.1.1    2 weeks ago

Stillers!

That's "Steelers" for those of you not from the Pittsburgh Metro

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
2.1.3  Bob Nelson  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.1.2    2 weeks ago

I used to watch the Balamer Coats! Unitas to Berry... touchdown!

 
 
 
Ender
2.1.4  Ender  replied to  Trout Giggles @2.1.2    2 weeks ago

Geux Saints!

Nothing like a team that is consistently good during the first half and blows it in the second.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
2.2  Bob Nelson  replied to  Kavika @2    2 weeks ago

Kinda daunting... 

May I add that the Fascist Party of America (otherwise known as the Republican Party) will soon be diligently using Trump's truncated census results to further gerrymander their states, in view to 2022, when the TrumpTrueBelievers will return in force. 

The Fascist Party of America has been working to eliminate democracy in America for decades already... Waiting another two or four or eight years... is not a problem for them. 

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
2.3  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  Kavika @2    2 weeks ago

How about those Lions? jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

Just kidding... they have sucked for YEARS! 

 
 
 
evilgenius
2.3.1  evilgenius  replied to  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka) @2.3    2 weeks ago
How about those Lions? Just kidding... they have sucked for YEARS! 

Being a Vikings fan, I really enjoyed last week's game.

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
2.3.2  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  evilgenius @2.3.1    2 weeks ago

I wouldn't know anything about any games, when they're on, or who's even playing... no one watches sports in my household. jrSmiley_91_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
2.3.3  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka) @2.3.2    2 weeks ago

I don't either but the Cardinals are from my home state of Arizona.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
2.4  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Kavika @2    2 weeks ago

How about them Cardinals?

 
 
 
Split Personality
3  Split Personality    2 weeks ago

8 killed in Egypt today including 6 American military in a training helicopter crash.

No word from the White House.

 
 
 
Dulay
3.1  Dulay  replied to  Split Personality @3    2 weeks ago

Oh come on SP, Trump tweeted about the Masters. He has his priorities you know...

 
 
 
Kavika
3.2  Kavika   replied to  Split Personality @3    2 weeks ago

That self-absorbed twit in the WH considers them to be suckers and losers. 

 

 
 
 
Split Personality
4  Split Personality    2 weeks ago

Asd Joe Biden has just been declared the "projected winner" in AZ

That's a step above "Apparent Winner". lol

11,000 plus lead and 11,000 provisional votes to review. It's over

290

Like I said last week, 306 - 232

I can hear the opera rehearsing...

 
 
 
Kavika
4.1  Kavika   replied to  Split Personality @4    2 weeks ago

4lhdhp.jpg

 
 
 
MAGA
5  MAGA    2 weeks ago

Then we move on to Trump 2024!  

 
 
 
Split Personality
5.1  Split Personality  replied to  MAGA @5    2 weeks ago

You are almost through the 7 stages of grief. Have hope. Go back to real religion.

6. Reconstruction & Working Through

As you become more functional, your mind starts working again, and you will find yourself seeking realistic solutions to problems posed by life without your loved one. You will start to work on practical and financial problems and reconstructing yourself and your life without him or her.

Examples of emotions during this stage of grief:

  • Inspired
  • Determined
  • Refreshed

7. Acceptance & Hope

During this, the last of the seven stages in this grief model, you learn to accept and deal with the reality of your situation. Acceptance does not necessarily mean instant happiness.

Given the pain and turmoil you have experienced, you can never return to the carefree, untroubled YOU that existed before this tragedy. But you will find a way forward. You will start to look forward and actually plan things for the future.

Eventually, you will be able to think about your lost loved one without pain. Sadness, yes! But the wrenching pain will be gone. You will once again anticipate some good times to come, and yes, even find joy again in the experience of living. You have made it through the 7 stages of grief.

https://www.recover-from-grief.com/7-stages-of-grief.html#:~:text=Here%20is%20the%20grief%20model%20we%20call%20the,death%20on%20someone%20else.%20...%20More%20items...%20

 
 
 
cjcold
5.1.1  cjcold  replied to  Split Personality @5.1    2 weeks ago

I think he is still grieving over Palin.

 
 
 
MAGA
5.1.2  MAGA  replied to  Split Personality @5.1    2 weeks ago

Trump 2024!  

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
5.1.3  Bob Nelson  replied to  MAGA @5.1.2    2 weeks ago

For once I agree. 

You and all the other TrumpTrueBelievers will again come out massively, to try to end democracy in America once and for all. 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
5.1.4  Trout Giggles  replied to  Split Personality @5.1    2 weeks ago

I've been thru the stages of grief numerous times and one can get to one stage pretty quickly but then have to repeat the process all over again. Some steps can very difficult to reach and then maintain

 
 
 
Dulay
5.1.5  Dulay  replied to  Split Personality @5.1    2 weeks ago

512

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
5.1.6  Trout Giggles  replied to  Dulay @5.1.5    2 weeks ago

That's a good one

 
 
 
Gordy327
5.1.7  Gordy327  replied to  Dulay @5.1.5    2 weeks ago

Is that Cliff Clavin (John Ratzenberger) from Cheers? jrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
cjcold
5.1.8  cjcold  replied to  MAGA @5.1.2    one week ago

At least you get to keep the stupid hat.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
6  JohnRussell    2 weeks ago

Whether or not Trump ceases to be a topic depends on whether or not he goes away after Jan 20. 

When I say "goes away"  I mean not demanding to be seen on the news everyday. When he left office, Obama disappeared from view for months at a time and didnt really reappear until the late stages of the recent election. George W Bush hardly made news at all , ever, since he left office in 2009. Past presidents have not needed to be the center of national attention after they left office. That will be put sternly to the test in 2021. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
6.1  Bob Nelson  replied to  JohnRussell @6    2 weeks ago
That will be put sternly to the test in 2021. 

Oh, indeed!

 
 
 
cjcold
6.1.1  cjcold  replied to  Bob Nelson @6.1    one week ago

Trump will not go quietly into oblivion.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
6.1.2  Bob Nelson  replied to  cjcold @6.1.1    one week ago

Of course not. He will make noises.

The question is, who will listen? Could be anything from no one to a hundred million.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
7  Nerm_L    2 weeks ago

The problem is that it is never over.  The next election is less than two years from now.  And what happens now is only preparation for the next election.

We've been lulled into accepting that a sports mentality applies to politics.  

 
 
 
Nerm_L
7.1  Nerm_L  replied to  Nerm_L @7    2 weeks ago

80 million votes is less than a quarter of the population of the United States.  One in four people decided who would be President.  Is that really democracy?

Crunching the numbers won't change that the United States is governed by a minority.  180 million people did not vote; that's more than half the population of the United States.  A Presidential candidate could have run unopposed and got every vote but would still not have been elected by a majority of the people in the United States.

 
 
 
Gordy327
7.1.1  Gordy327  replied to  Nerm_L @7.1    2 weeks ago

If only a quarter of the nation's population voted, then they chose the President. Everyone else have the right to vote but apparently chose not to. That's on them. In effect, they waived their right to have any say in the election.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
7.1.2  Nerm_L  replied to  Gordy327 @7.1.1    2 weeks ago
If only a quarter of the nation's population voted, then they chose the President. Everyone else have the right to vote but apparently chose not to. That's on them. In effect, they waived their right to have any say in the election.

No, they don't have the right to exercise the vote.  About 100 million people living in the United States cannot vote for a variety of reasons.

If every eligible voter voted that would only be about two thirds of the population.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
7.1.3  Ozzwald  replied to  Nerm_L @7.1    2 weeks ago
A Presidential candidate could have run unopposed and got every vote but would still not have been elected by a majority of the people in the United States.

Nowadays, being elected by a majority of the people in the United States doesn't mean crap with the electoral college.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
7.1.4  Trout Giggles  replied to  Nerm_L @7.1.2    2 weeks ago

Why can't those 100 million people vote? Is it because they are felons? Whose fault is that? Certainly not yours or mine

 
 
 
Gordy327
7.1.5  Gordy327  replied to  Nerm_L @7.1.2    2 weeks ago

The presumption is were referring to eligible voters. I think you know that Nerm. Regardless, my point still stands. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
7.1.6  Nerm_L  replied to  Ozzwald @7.1.3    2 weeks ago
Nowadays, being elected by a majority of the people in the United States doesn't mean crap with the electoral college.

About one third of the population of the United States cannot vote for a variety of reasons.  One out of four people elected Joe Biden.  With or without the electoral college, Joe Biden was not elected by a majority of people in the United States. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
7.1.7  Nerm_L  replied to  Trout Giggles @7.1.4    2 weeks ago
Why can't those 100 million people vote? Is it because they are felons? Whose fault is that? Certainly not yours or mine

Underage, non-citizenship, mental incompetency, etc.  A third of the population cannot vote for a variety of reasons.  But government is supposed to represent those people, too.

 
 
 
Split Personality
7.1.8  Split Personality  replied to  Nerm_L @7.1.2    2 weeks ago
About 100 million people living in the United States cannot vote for a variety of reasons.

True that. Most of them are under the age of 18.

So?  Are you going to let 12 year olds and infants vote?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
7.1.9  Nerm_L  replied to  Gordy327 @7.1.5    2 weeks ago
The presumption is were referring to eligible voters. I think you know that Nerm. Regardless, my point still stands.

The reality is that our President is selected by one in four people in the United States.  Changing the rules of the bar game to claim a majority doesn't objectively describe reality.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
7.1.10  Trout Giggles  replied to  Nerm_L @7.1.7    2 weeks ago

Those people can't vote by law. Life isn't fair, Nerm. I'm sure somebody told you that at some point in your life.

Underage voters are represented by their parents/guardians. Mental incompetents almost always have a guardian, they represent their charge when they vote.

Non-citizens? I really don't think there's anything to say there.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
7.1.11  Trout Giggles  replied to  Nerm_L @7.1.9    2 weeks ago

I've caught on to your game. You're arguing just to argue or troll.

Since this is not my seed I will just leave that alone.

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.1.12  author  TᵢG  replied to  Trout Giggles @7.1.11    2 weeks ago

Unfortunately that is allowed by the CoC.

 
 
 
Split Personality
7.1.13  Split Personality  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.12    2 weeks ago

Lies, damnable lies and statistics, lol.

 
 
 
Dulay
7.1.14  Dulay  replied to  Nerm_L @7.1.9    2 weeks ago
The reality is that our President is selected by one in four people in the United States. 

Are you advocating for allowing every person in the US to vote without age limit, citizenship requirements or felony restrictions? 

Because if you're NOT, your comment is moot 

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.1.15  author  TᵢG  replied to  Dulay @7.1.14    2 weeks ago

Exactly:

so-what.png?w=1394

 
 
 
Nerm_L
7.1.17  Nerm_L  replied to  Dulay @7.1.14    2 weeks ago
Are you advocating for allowing every person in the US to vote without age limit, citizenship requirements or felony restrictions?  Because if you're NOT, your comment is moot 

I'm stating that a sports mentality applied to politics doesn't accomplish what we are led to believe.  Governing isn't about which team wins.

The blue team and red team, combined, are less than half the population of the country.  And one out of four people decide which team wins.  Politics in the United States is not about democracy.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
7.1.18  Ozzwald  replied to  Nerm_L @7.1.6    2 weeks ago
With or without the electoral college, Joe Biden was not elected by a majority of people in the United States.

He was elected by a plurality of people in the United States.

 
 
 
Gordy327
7.1.19  Gordy327  replied to  Nerm_L @7.1.17    2 weeks ago

People who vote determines who wins by majority. That's how it and our "democracy" works. That's how it has always worked so there is no "rule change." If people do not want to vote, that is their preogative. Elections are based on who votes, not whom does not vote. If you want more than 1/4 of the population to have a say, then get them to come out and vote, like everyone else. They have that right, just like everyone else. So our "democracy" is fair and equal.

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.1.20  author  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @7.1.17    2 weeks ago
Politics in the United States is not about democracy.

Democracy does not necessarily mean 100% of the population is eligible to participate.   Even in ancient Athens (on a much smaller scale with fewer and less complex issues) this was not the case.

Not having 100% eligibility does not make our process undemocratic.

 
 
 
Dulay
7.1.21  Dulay  replied to  Nerm_L @7.1.17    2 weeks ago

To steal a phrase from TiG: SO WHAT? 

Blather all you want the 'population' but the FACT is, unless you advocate for EVERY inhabitant of the country to be FORCED to vote, those that qualify and CHOOSE to do so will decide. Citing a percentage of the WHOLE population while supporting an ideology that relies on minimizing voter participation is hypocritical. 

 
 
 
Nerm_L
7.1.22  Nerm_L  replied to  Ozzwald @7.1.18    2 weeks ago
He was elected by a plurality of people in the United States.

80 million votes is a quarter of the population.  Joe Biden was not elected by a plurality of people in the United States; that's incorrect.

Joe Biden was elected by a majority of voters.  But less than half the population of the United States voted.  If Joe Biden has a mandate to represent those who voted for him then that is only one out of four people in the United States.

Yes, the election is over and Joe Biden won.  But Biden won the election with the support of one out of four people in the United States.  The same can be said of Trump winning the 2016 election.

And the end of the 2020 election cycle only started the 2022 election cycle.  Biden won the 2020 election with the support of one out four people but we've already started the next blue team/red team contest.

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.1.23  author  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @7.1.22    2 weeks ago

Throughout our history, the PotUS was elected by a minority of the population.

What is your point?    You cannot be arguing that this means we are not practicing democracy unless you are redefining the word 'democracy'.   So what are you trying to say?

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
7.1.24  Bob Nelson  replied to  Trout Giggles @7.1.4    2 weeks ago

Under 18 is surely the biggest reason. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
7.1.25  Bob Nelson  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.12    2 weeks ago
Unfortunately that is allowed by the CoC.

Ummmmm..... 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
7.1.26  Bob Nelson  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.20    2 weeks ago
Not having 100% eligibility does not make our process undemocratic.

Not "undemocratic"... but "less democratic". 

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
7.1.27  Trout Giggles  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.23    2 weeks ago

You know what he's doing, TiG.

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.1.28  author  TᵢG  replied to  Bob Nelson @7.1.26    2 weeks ago

Semantically correct.   A society that allows its infants, felons, etc. to vote would be technically more democratic than ours.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
7.1.29  Trout Giggles  replied to  Bob Nelson @7.1.24    2 weeks ago

It's one of the reasons, but there are also felons, dishonorably discharged vets (which I forgot about) and non-citizens both legal and illegal. If Nerm is trying to say he wants all those people to vote, then he is in for a rude awakening. Except for the non-citizens, the others put themselves in the non-voter category and I have no sympathy for them. And I'm not about to change my mind on non-citizens voting. Become a citizen, then become part of the process.

As for minors, there's a reason why they can't vote. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.1.30  author  TᵢG  replied to  Trout Giggles @7.1.27    2 weeks ago

Yeah, but I have never recognized the value of this particular game.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
7.1.31  Trout Giggles  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.28    2 weeks ago

Even in Ancient Athens only citizens had the right to vote and if I remember my ancient history correctly, not everyone was a citizen. Citizens were property owners

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
7.1.32  Trout Giggles  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.30    2 weeks ago

It's annoying and exhausting.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
7.1.33  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.23    2 weeks ago
Throughout our history, the PotUS was elected by a minority of the population.

Hence three branches of government, state sovereignty (within limits), and the electoral college.

What is your point?    You cannot be arguing that this means we are not practicing democracy unless you are redefining the word 'democracy'.   So what are you trying to say?

Democratic methods does not make a democracy.  The fact that the United States is a representative republic really is more important than just a bumper sticker slogan used in a blue team/red team contest.

What does any given candidate winning an election really mean?  You've crunched the numbers to 'prove' that Joe Biden won the 2020 election and that Trump has no chance of changing that outcome.  Why is that important?

Within the context of the blue team/red team contest, the blue player defeated the red player.  But that win was accomplished with one out of four people.  Does that mean a quarter of population now determines the future of the country?  Does that mean three quarters of the population no longer have a say in the future of the country?

 
 
 
Ozzwald
7.1.34  Ozzwald  replied to  Nerm_L @7.1.22    2 weeks ago
Joe Biden was not elected by a plurality of people in the United States; that's incorrect.

If you don't know the word, you should look it up.  It will save you from looking foolish.

plural   pluralities

Definition of   plurality

1 a the state of being  plural

b :   the state of being numerous
c :   a large number or quantity
2 :   PLURALISM   sense 1 also   :   a benefice held by   pluralism
3 a :   a number greater than another
b an excess of votes over those cast for an opposing candidate
c a number of votes cast for a candidate in a contest of more than two candidates that is greater than the number cast for any other candidate but not more than half the total votes cast
 
 
 
TᵢG
7.1.35  author  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @7.1.33    2 weeks ago
Democratic methods does not make a democracy. 

That is what I thought, you have your own definition of 'democracy'.

The concept of a Republic is that ultimate power rests with the people.   The most common method of the people (the demos) exercising their power in a (true) Republic is through democracy.   In the case of a Republic that means representative (aka indirect) democracy vs. direct democracy.

We are a constitutional, federated Republic using representative democracy (with direct democracy in rare cases) as the means by which the people exercise their power.

Why is that important?

It is good to know who will be PotUS.

Does that mean a quarter of population now determines the future of the country?  Does that mean three quarters of the population no longer have a say in the future of the country?

No.  It means that some voters in the USA exercised their right to vote.   Of those who voted, the majority favored Biden.   Also, the votes caused the electoral college tally to go in Biden's favor.   Biden, thus, is the president-elect.

Those who could vote but did not vote chose to not vote.  They made a choice.    Those who cannot vote (minors, felons, etc.) have no opportunity to control the political future with a vote.   They must use other means of influence until they reach legal voting age (or regain their vote after being a felon).

So, in short, it is true that the PotUS is (and this has always been true) elected by a minority of the population.   Also:  The Earth is an ellipsoid.   Snow is cold.   Death is inevitable.   Trump is an asshole.   etc.


I feel as though I am explaining basic civics to high school students.   Why are you asking such naïve questions when clearly you know better?

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
7.1.36  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  Trout Giggles @7.1.29    2 weeks ago

Or people legally able to vote, but are otherwise incapacitated, but I do realize that's not a large portion of US citizens. It was just an addition to your list. jrSmiley_100_smiley_image.jpg

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
7.1.37  Trout Giggles  replied to  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka) @7.1.36    2 weeks ago

People of sound mind should still be able to vote it doesn't matter the nature of their physical incapacitation. 

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
7.1.38  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  Trout Giggles @7.1.37    2 weeks ago

It's pretty difficult to do when you're in and out of surgeries for months and completely loopy while not in surgery.

As in... my stepdad wasn't thinking about voting when he was losing his leg to gangrene caused by a physician that should lose his damn license... the physician that performed his initial surgery isn't even board certified.

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
7.1.39  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka) @7.1.38    2 weeks ago

e.g. "otherwise incapacitated"

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
7.1.40  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  Trout Giggles @7.1.37    2 weeks ago

A coma patient would be considered "otherwise incapacitated" too.

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
7.1.41  Trout Giggles  replied to  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka) @7.1.38    2 weeks ago

True but that's what absentee ballots are for, if a person can get one

 
 
 
Trout Giggles
7.1.42  Trout Giggles  replied to  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka) @7.1.40    2 weeks ago

I don't have an answer for that. It looks like some people won't be able to vote.

 
 
 
MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)
7.1.43  MsAubrey (aka Ahyoka)  replied to  Trout Giggles @7.1.41    2 weeks ago

With hospitals not allowing people in [in some instances], you're right... IF a person can get one.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
7.1.44  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.35    2 weeks ago
That is what I thought, you have your own definition of 'democracy'.

100 Senators and 435 Representatives can create a universal basic income with two democratic votes (one in each chamber).  The President can overturn those two democratic votes with a veto.  The President, Senators, and Representatives were elected with a democratic vote.

But, but, but ... The discussion is only about the Presidential election.  The President can completely bypass Congress with executive orders because the President claims voters gave them a mandate.  But that President was elected by only a quarter of the population.

Now explain to us all how that fits your definition of democracy.  You are selectively applying the definition of democracy and then accusing me of changing the definition?

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.1.45  author  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @7.1.44    2 weeks ago
Now explain to us all how that fits your definition of democracy. 

I am not the one trying to redefine the term ' democracy '.   What you just described was representative democracy — that which exists in every true Republic.

I would ask you to look up the term, but instead I will simply provide the definition from Oxford:

Democracy A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.

The latter part of the definition is referring to representative democracy.  

Democracy is not necessarily direct (or indirect) voting by every citizen.   In fact, as I noted before, this was not true even in ancient Athens.

The definition provided fits with your scenario.   So what is your problem here Nerm?   Do you have a problem with the CotUS and the powers it provides to the Executive branch?   Do you dislike the representative democracy reflected by Congress?  

Or are you arguing just for the sake of argument?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
7.1.46  Nerm_L  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.45    2 weeks ago
I am not the one trying to redefine the term ' democracy '.

Neither am I redefining the term 'democracy'.

What you just described was representative democracy — that which exists in every true Republic.

Now you are redefining the term 'democracy' with a qualifier to match what I have correctly described.  The United States is a democratic republic - and not - a representative democracy.  

The definition provided fits with your scenario.   So what is your problem here Nerm?   Do you have a problem with the CotUS and the powers it provides to the Executive branch?   Do you dislike the representative democracy reflected by Congress?  

I have a problem with people claiming I am redefining terms and then those people who made the allegations trying to redefine their position to match what I have been saying all along.

And posting a definition still hasn't answered the question I posed in @7.1.35.  The United States cannot be a representative democracy because voters elect a President, Senators, and Representatives who are not required to agree.  Voters do not elect a singular representative; voters elect many representatives at many levels of government.  The United States is a democratic republic. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
7.1.47  author  TᵢG  replied to  Nerm_L @7.1.46    2 weeks ago

Yeah, you are just arguing for the sake of it.

The United States is a democratic republic - and not - a representative democracy.  

The two are not mutually exclusive; in fact Republic implies representative democracy.   I have already explained this so I will quote myself:

TiG @ 7.1.35 ☞ The concept of a Republic is that ultimate power rests with the people.   The most common method of the people (the demos) exercising their power in a (true) Republic is through democracy.   In the case of a Republic that means representative (aka indirect) democracy vs. direct democracy.  We are a constitutional, federated Republic using representative democracy (with direct democracy in rare cases) as the means by which the people exercise their power.

Seems clear to me.

Now you are redefining the term 'democracy' with a qualifier to match what I have correctly described.  The United States is a democratic republic - and not - a representative democracy.  

The term 'representative democracy' aka indirect democracy is an extremely well established term.  For you to suggest that my use of that term is a redefinition of democracy means that you have very little understanding of democracy.   Especially since I just gave you the definition from Oxford.   How can that be, Nerm?  

I have a problem with people claiming I am redefining terms and then those people who made the allegations trying to redefine their position to match what I have been saying all along.

I gave you Oxford's definition.  I did not create any definition.   If you have a problem with the definition, take it up with Oxford.   But note that Oxford is in agreement with the other dictionaries and academic treatments of democracy and representative democracy.   In short, you are on the wrong side of facts and are simply projecting.

The United States cannot be a representative democracy because voters elect a President, Senators, and Representatives who are not required to agree. 

How ridiculous.   What does agreement have to do with representative democracy?   There is no requirement to agree in any system (other than a dictatorship). 

Voters do not elect a singular representative; voters elect many representatives at many levels of government.

So what?   The fact that we are a federated system with national, state and local government does not change the fact that our system is based on representative democracy.   The USA is a constitutional federated Republic using representative democracy (with direct democracy in rare cases) as the means by which the people exercise their power.

The United States is a democratic republic. 

All ( true ) Republics are democratic.   Do you not even understand what the word Republic means?:

Republic A state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives , and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.

The supreme power is held by the people (the demos).    Now remember the definition of Democracy:

Democracy — A system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives .

If you do not understand this then I think I am done trying to explain it.   I have broken this down repeatedly.    Do some research and learn what these terms mean.

If you do understand this then you are simply arguing for the sake of argument (my hypothesis) and since we are going around in circles I am not going to continue this nonsense.

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
7.1.48  Bob Nelson  replied to  TᵢG @7.1.47    2 weeks ago

Your hanging on this long is admirable. 

Or...... 

 
 
 
Veronica
7.1.49  Veronica  replied to  Bob Nelson @7.1.48    2 weeks ago
our hanging on this long is admirable. 

And impressive.

 
 
 
cjcold
7.1.50  cjcold  replied to  Nerm_L @7.1.9    one week ago

Trump is an insane asshole who trashes his best friends.

Biden is a nice guy that everybody likes no matter the party.

 
 
 
Kathleen
8  Kathleen    2 weeks ago

True.

Its best to move on.

I will say this though,  I will never apologize for whomever I voted for and whoever I decide to vote for in the future. It’s my right like any American in this country.  Frankly, it’s really none of your business. 

If you don’t like it... get a life.

 
 
 
Kathleen
8.1  Kathleen  replied to  Kathleen @8    2 weeks ago

Note, this comment was in general, not directed to any specific person. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
8.1.1  author  TᵢG  replied to  Kathleen @8.1    2 weeks ago

Note that this article does not imply in any way that one should apologize for their vote.

 
 
 
Kathleen
8.1.2  Kathleen  replied to  TᵢG @8.1.1    2 weeks ago

Actually that’s good to hear.

 
 
 
cjcold
8.1.3  cjcold  replied to  Kathleen @8.1    one week ago

[Deleted]

 
 
 
bugsy
9  bugsy    2 weeks ago

I'm sure it will only be a matter of time that Trump concedes his defeat, but I will not have a problem with him exercising his right to challenge the election. He and his supporters have been beaten down by the left and the media (the same) for 4 years for no other reason than his name is not Hillary. .

Anybody that applauded Gore not conceding until December 13th, and having a hissy fit that Trump has not yet conceded is nothing but being hypocritical.

Just remember....in less than 2 years, the country will vote once again for the House and some Senate seats. The left cannot afford to lose any more seats in the House, and there will be far more leftist seats up for reelection than republicans. It is well known the left does not like to come out during mid terms, so there is a likely chance that the Republicans will take the House and continue to control the Senate.

Either way, there is a good chance that the socialist ideas that many on the left are trying to push will get nowhere because the Senate is still held by Republicans.

In 4 years, more than likely the republican nominee for president will not be running against Biden, but more than likely against Harris. The socialist experiment in the country will once again be denied.

 
 
 
Tessylo
10  Tessylo    2 weeks ago

"He and his supporters have been beaten down by the left and the media (the same) for 4 years for no other reason than his name is not Hillary. ."

Never happened

 
 
 
bugsy
10.1  bugsy  replied to  Tessylo @10    2 weeks ago
Never happened

It is understood that those that have participated in such activities always deny it.

 
 
 
Greg Jones
10.2  Greg Jones  replied to  Tessylo @10    2 weeks ago

Happened every day...remember the pointless impeachment fiasco?

 
 
 
cjcold
10.3  cjcold  replied to  Tessylo @10    one week ago

I was actually disgusted by Trump long before he got into politics.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
11  Buzz of the Orient    2 weeks ago

The fact that it is now virtually impossible for Trump to win will make no difference to his antics, because winning for him was a lost cause anyway. What he is doing is intended to keep his following, intending either to run again in 2024 or as an audience for a TV talk-show that he will moderate, with both being a possibility.  It will be interesting to see how much success he will have if in fact he spends some time in Jail for his crimes. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
11.1  author  TᵢG  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @11    2 weeks ago

It is unlikely that the nation will prosecute an ex-PotUS but it is possible.   I think Trump will seek an avenue to continue his celebrity so we will be stuck with him (to a lesser degree).   But I doubt he well get anything more than a sliver of the attention he received as PotUS so it will be okay.

 
 
 
Gordy327
11.1.1  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @11.1    2 weeks ago
I think Trump will seek an avenue to continue his celebrity so we will be stuck with him (to a lesser degree). 

I tend to think celebrity is the main reason why Trump wanted to be President. Few people garner more attention than the President.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
11.1.2  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Gordy327 @11.1.1    2 weeks ago

Rallies were obviously so important to him.

 
 
 
Gordy327
11.1.3  Gordy327  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @11.1.2    2 weeks ago

Getting attention and feeding his ego is important to him. I think he spent more time tweeting than he did actually governing the country. Covid is getting out of control again and he wastes time worrying about voter fraud rather than about Covid. How people can support someone with such screwed up priorities boggles the mind.

 
 
 
TᵢG
11.1.4  author  TᵢG  replied to  Gordy327 @11.1.1    2 weeks ago

I actually think that is why he ran.   I believe he never intended to win and was surprised that he become such a dominant front-runner in 2016.   He became PotUS because he failed to find an exit strategy and kindof got carried in by the wave.   However, in 2020 I am convinced that he really, really, really wanted to be reelected.

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
11.1.5  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  TᵢG @11.1.4    2 weeks ago

I have to agree with that assessment. Now the GOP has an 800 lb gorilla to deal with that will not let a legitimate GOP candidate run in 2024. 

Unforeseen outcomes. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
11.1.6  author  TᵢG  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @11.1.5    2 weeks ago

Do you think the GOP will support a 2024 run for Trump or will they be that much against him?

 
 
 
Raven Wing
11.1.7  Raven Wing  replied to  TᵢG @11.1.6    2 weeks ago

Trump will want to keep his radical base in his pocket for his planned 2024 run. So he will make sure that he keeps his face in their face to keep them loyal to him. That includes many of his admin staff who took a loyalty oath to him. 

However, it may be difficult to keep his face in the news as much as he would like from a prison cell. And he has a lot of investigations to deal with after he leaves office as well. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
11.1.8  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  TᵢG @11.1.6    2 weeks ago

I think they are afraid of his base and that supporting another candidate, will cause another Republican loss. On the other hand, supporting him could have the same net outcome in another race (depending on who the Dems throw at him). If he truly cared about his party he would bow out and let someone else have a chance like Nikki Haley, et al. 

 
 
 
Perrie Halpern R.A.
11.1.9  Perrie Halpern R.A.  replied to  Raven Wing @11.1.7    2 weeks ago
However, it may be difficult to keep his face in the news as much as he would like from a prison cell. And he has a lot of investigations to deal with after he leaves office as well. 

This is another possibility, but this cat seems to have more than 9 lives. 

 
 
 
Raven Wing
11.1.10  Raven Wing  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @11.1.9    2 weeks ago
but this cat seems to have more than 9 lives.

That could be true, but, if he is convicted of even one crime he would automatically not be eligible to run for President. And the possibility of that happening looks pretty good at this point. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
11.1.11  Bob Nelson  replied to  TᵢG @11.1    2 weeks ago
It is unlikely that the nation will prosecute an ex-PotUS but it is possible.   

I think it depends on the discovery of counterparts for concessions of Federal land, oil, forests... that the Administration has delivered to private interests, for no apparent reason. 

There may be a flood of private lawsuits, now that he doesn't have the DOJ to run interference. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
11.1.12  Bob Nelson  replied to  TᵢG @11.1.6    2 weeks ago

Do you think the GOP will support a 2024 run for Trump or will they be that much against him?

The $64 question! 

Watching the GOP muddle through this may be the best entertainment we have for the next few years. 

ContentEsteemedDuck-max-1mb.gif

 
 
 
Greg Jones
11.1.13  Greg Jones  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @11.1.8    2 weeks ago
If he truly cared about his party he would bow out and let someone else have a chance like Nikki Haley, et al. 

That will be the ultimate result.  Trump will concede shortly, Dems will likely lose the House at midterms, while Repubs retain the Senate, so Biden won't accomplish much. Trumpism will prosper and grow, while the GOP Establishment withers and dies. 

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
11.1.14  Hal A. Lujah  replied to  Greg Jones @11.1.13    2 weeks ago

Lol.  Yesterday someone here posted some of your past quotes about predicting what would happen in 2020.  So based on your record, it looks like Dems are poised to take the senate, the house, and the White House in 2024.

 
 
 
Kathleen
11.1.15  Kathleen  replied to  TᵢG @11.1.6    2 weeks ago

I have someone else in mind I would like to run for a Republican President.  

 
 
 
Dulay
11.1.16  Dulay  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @11.1.8    2 weeks ago

They've spent almost 4 years kowtowing to Trump out of fear of a tweet. I see no evidence that they will suddenly gird their loins and stand up to him. Once unleashed, without sufficient staff to clean up and limit Trump's twitter rages, who knows what hoops Trump will try to make the GOP jump through. I think that Trump will further erode what little credibility the GOP 'leadership' has left. Trump will not go gentle into that good night. I wonder if he is already preparing a list of nicknames for them all. 

The longer they cower from him, the longer they allow him to control their actions, the less they can lay any claim to be working for the good of the country in good faith. Judging from the statements put out by my own GOP Senators, as of this morning, they are still all in for Trump AND all in on defying health guidelines to mitigate the effects of the pandemic. 

They've sold their soul for cheap. 

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
11.1.17  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @11.1.14    2 weeks ago
Lol.  Yesterday someone here posted some of your past quotes about predicting what would happen in 2020.  So based on your record, it looks like Dems are poised to take the senate, the house, and the White House in 2024.

I had a fabulous CoC violation to throw @11.1.13.  I like your non-violation much better...subtle, with just the right amount of in-your-face with a hint of boom shakalaka.  

 
 
 
Gordy327
11.1.18  Gordy327  replied to  TᵢG @11.1.4    2 weeks ago
I actually think that is why he ran.

As do I.

I believe he never intended to win and was surprised that he become such a dominant front-runner in 2016. 

I've said before that I think he treated the whole campaign and Presidency as a reality show. He never seemed to take the job seriously, as is demonstrated by his dismal response to Covid as one example. He just liked being the center of attention.

He became PotUS because he failed to find an exit strategy and kindof got carried in by the wave.  

Winning the Presidency must have been a huge ego stroking for him. Not to mention constant attention. It's no surprise he wouldn't leave, even if he didn't like the job or know what he was doing.

However, in 2020 I am convinced that he really, really, really wanted to be reelected.

And in a bigly way too. jrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif His ego and narcissism wouldn't accept anything less.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
11.1.19  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Perrie Halpern R.A. @11.1.8    2 weeks ago

Wouldn't Biden have in 2024 the advantages that Trump had this time around had it not been for the virus?  If he does choose re-election he would be the incumbent, surely 4 years from now the virus will have been defeated, economy will most likely be rising and employment much improved.  His age then could be a detriment, although right now I'm older than he would be then, and I'm still lucid (I think). 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
11.1.20  Bob Nelson  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @11.1.19    2 weeks ago

I think he's pass the relay to Kamala. 

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
11.1.21  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Bob Nelson @11.1.20    2 weeks ago

I guess that will depend on her performance over the next 4 years.  Harris could face Nikki Haley, who is no slouch herself, and was never a Trumpster, if Trump DOESN'T run again, and although Pompeo may have aspirations, he's a pompous lying Trump ass-kisser who I wouldn't trust with a dime.  There are other Democrats that might be in a position to run in the future - Buttigieg for example. 

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
11.1.22  Bob Nelson  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @11.1.21    2 weeks ago

My crystal ball says... 

 
 
 
cjcold
11.1.23  cjcold  replied to  Bob Nelson @11.1.22    one week ago

NY will be prosecuting Trump.

 
 
 
Hal A. Lujah
12  Hal A. Lujah    2 weeks ago

It’s not over until God smashes the clay jar of deceit in America with his iron rod!!

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
12.1  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom  replied to  Hal A. Lujah @12    2 weeks ago

Jeebus, Larry, and Yoseph, what a freakin' mess she is.

 
 
 
devangelical
12.1.1  devangelical  replied to  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom @12.1    2 weeks ago

most of these fucking bible thumpers need to be in a mental facility where they can't hurt anyone.

 
 
 
Texan1211
12.1.2  Texan1211  replied to  devangelical @12.1.1    2 weeks ago

Has a bible thumper harmed you in some way?

 
 
 
cjcold
12.1.3  cjcold  replied to  Texan1211 @12.1.2    one week ago

Yes! Bible thumpers don't believe in the reality of science.

Anthropogenic global warming is a real thing.

 
 
 
Gordy327
12.1.4  Gordy327  replied to  cjcold @12.1.3    one week ago

Don't forget evolution too.

 
 
 
Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom
13  Sister Mary Agnes Ample Bottom    2 weeks ago

Will some continue to stubbornly defy reality?

In a word?  Yes.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
14  Paula Bartholomew    2 weeks ago

Trump already got his flip.  America has flipped him the middle finger.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
15  Buzz of the Orient    2 weeks ago

Trump has made a mockery 
Of American democracy
He refuses to concede
To give up the lead
Transition prevented
To saboutage instead
He'll be ravaged by history
For political blasphemy
Bringing humiliation 
To the American nation

 
 
 
TᵢG
15.1  author  TᵢG  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @15    2 weeks ago

This will definitely tarnish his already tarnished personal record (how he behaved as PotUS).   Thing is, that record is already so discolored that this will likely not even be noticeable.

 
 
 
CB
15.1.1  CB   replied to  TᵢG @15.1    2 weeks ago

How many more presidential transgressions can this man irresponsibly display before he slays any chance of 2024 for a comeback?

 
 
 
TᵢG
15.1.2  author  TᵢG  replied to  CB @15.1.1    2 weeks ago

If he has a chance in 2024 (which I do not see unless this nation goes through a hellish four years) then it would seem that nothing would do any damage.    A real concern is that the business cycle will start turning during Biden's presidency.   Biden will get the blame and Trump will come back with the 'see I told you so; vote for me and I will rebuild the greatest economy ever known'.   

People will buy that crap.

 
 
 
CB
15.1.3  CB   replied to  TᵢG @15.1.2    2 weeks ago

Possibly. With one "bigly" and not so surprising exception: Donald Trump will have a solid record of talking lying for four solid years; all the more to trap him. Old man and his played out tricks. Equally or more importantly, Biden and his team will get to flesh out the 2020 pandemic comprehensively - we will learn if this sickness and death is Trump's "Benghazi"!

 
 
 
TᵢG
15.1.4  author  TᵢG  replied to  CB @15.1.3    2 weeks ago

Too many people apparently do not care about his lies and other character flaws.   It is incredible, but empirically true.

 
 
 
CB
15.1.5  CB   replied to  TᵢG @15.1.4    2 weeks ago

But, "Lincoln Project." Four years to go take back their "stuff." (Never thought I would see a day I would "celebrate" a proper republican party!)

 
 
 
TᵢG
15.1.6  author  TᵢG  replied to  CB @15.1.5    2 weeks ago

Well I am not going to concern myself with this.    Let's take this one year at a time.

 
 
 
CB
15.1.7  CB   replied to  TᵢG @15.1.4    2 weeks ago

Also, when will it strike home with the public and some republicans that they are losing touch with their political grounding? Their party is suspended in mid-air. That Trump furthering his reach as "In-charge" means proper republicans have lost control of the GOP?

 
 
 
CB
15.1.8  CB   replied to  TᵢG @15.1.6    2 weeks ago

I hear you loud and clear. Trump is the one who has thrown down yet another future 'guanlet' (marker), nevertheless!

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
15.1.9  Bob Nelson  replied to  CB @15.1.1    2 weeks ago
How many more presidential transgressions can this man irresponsibly display before he slays any chance of 2024 for a comeback?

Sadly... the answer is "as many as time permits". 

Until now, TrumpTrueBelievers have happily accepted whatever mayhem he has committed. There's no reason to imagine they will change. 

 
 
 
CB
15.1.10  CB   replied to  Bob Nelson @15.1.9    2 weeks ago

I don't think the republicans and conservatives get it. Our country can not simply exist in its infantile state permanently. The proper course of nature is to grow, mature, and seniority. There is no good way to invite all these immigrant cultures here from across the planet and then tell them to go their way or worse define freedom for some separate and apart from freedom for others. It did not work out before (for women, slaves, LGBTQ, et ceteras) and the 'divide' can't work out even now!

If this country wants to truly live up to its freedom creed: then get on with it. Maximum qualified freedoms for all! Noone reasonably held back, repressed, or oppressed that is!

 
 
 
Bob Nelson
15.1.11  Bob Nelson  replied to  CB @15.1.10    2 weeks ago

Excellent post. 

 
 
 
Split Personality
15.1.12  Split Personality  replied to  TᵢG @15.1    2 weeks ago

maybe Michael Cohen can write an addendum to his book, lol.

 
 
 
Paula Bartholomew
15.1.13  Paula Bartholomew  replied to  TᵢG @15.1.2    one week ago

Hopefully he will be behind bars by 2024 for many years.

 
 
 
cjcold
15.1.14  cjcold  replied to  TᵢG @15.1.6    one week ago

Just like football.

 
 
 
Gordy327
15.1.15  Gordy327  replied to  cjcold @15.1.14    one week ago

We'll say this year was one big fumble.

 
 
 
Freewill
16  Freewill    2 weeks ago

So your saying... he still has a chance?... jrSmiley_82_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
TᵢG
16.1  author  TᵢG  replied to  Freewill @16    2 weeks ago

jrSmiley_82_smiley_image.gif   Even less than Lloyd's.

 
 
 
Freewill
16.1.1  Freewill  replied to  TᵢG @16.1    one week ago
Even less than Lloyd's.

And like Lloyd, he will no doubt blow up the bathroom next to the oval office... jrSmiley_55_smiley_image.gif

 
 
Loading...
Loading...

Who is online


Bob Nelson


43 visitors