2020 Presidential Election -- Biden v Trump: Sleepy Joe vs Dopey Don [Results begin on page 409]

[lemonlime 5,503]

Link?

I’m not clicking on any trump campaign links. But I was able to get a screen shot off my iPad, although the tag line is in a different place when I pull it up there, as opposed to my desktop.

[Hank Chinaski 6,315]

2 hours ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Abby Johnson (the anti choice advocate)

Is this the one that used to work for Planned Parenthood in College Station?

Because that person is (surprise!) completely full of shit. She told me that she regularly got death threats from anti-choice nutjobs before she took the money from them to be their spokesperson changed her entire worldview as a result of working in a non-surgical PPhood facility that screened for STDs and provided birth control witnessing horrifying abortion procedures..

[Michael Knight 12,988]

 

[Hugo Stiglitz 23,367]

Trump seems determined to kill a million Americans b/f calling it quits. I always said it was just a question of body count with Trump. 

[Guest Lobo]

So a literal reboot of the series now called 

“Iowa Senator Joni loves ChaChi”

[Pancho 44,856]

1 hour ago, lemonlime said:

JFC on the Trump ads.  Just saw an ad on Wapo.com, and this is disgusting.  Even more disgusting is that this is apparently working for a large portion of the electorate.  The tagline is "The Radical Leftist Takeover of Joe Biden is Complete." And the tagline is printed over Biden, so he can't be seen, but clearly shows Harris who is standing next to him, laughing, against a backdrop of a fire with "protestors" standing in front of it.

I just don't understand why Dems allow for those on the right to constantly say "Radical Left" while not punching back and calling them the Radical Right."

Baffling. 

[SizzleChest 8,284]

1 minute ago, Pancho said:

I just don't understand why Dems allow for those on the right to constantly say "Radical Left" while not punching back and calling them the Radical Right."

Baffling. 

Because it's then easily perceived as an acceptance that Dems are the 'Radical Left'.  A silly retort to a stupid slogan.

[Brisketexan 105,155]

21 minutes ago, Pancho said:

I just don't understand why Dems allow for those on the right to constantly say "Radical Left" while not punching back and calling them the Radical Right."

Baffling. 

The dems should simply refer to "the terrorist GOP -- supporting nazis, fascists, and conspiracies that violently attack innocent people."

[Pancho 44,856]

22 minutes ago, SizzleChest said:

Because it's then easily perceived as an acceptance that Dems are the 'Radical Left'.  A silly retort to a stupid slogan.

I don't know that I agree with this, but I see your point. 

 

6 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

The dems should simply refer to "the terrorist GOP -- supporting nazis, fascists, and conspiracies that violently attack innocent people."

I'm also fine with this.

[Fozzz 152]

On 8/19/2020 at 12:17 PM, Brisketexan said:

No.

But they SHOULD turn out and vote AGAINST the party that is actively killing people, celebrates imprisoning children as a terrorist tactic, and the like.

Your house may be shitty, it may not have plumbing, and you may make me sleep on floor with no AC, and you may charge me $200 a night for the pleasure.....but I will 100% seek refuge inside that house when there's a dude outside who wants to fuck me up.  Sometimes, the situation is that dire.  And here we are.

This belief is just based on blind hope though.  Biden's people are already pitching austerity months from the election when there is no political reason for him to do so.    

I think the only  real reason to vote for Biden is the belief that his administration would be so horrible that him winning would be more damaging to the Dem party than a Trump re-election.

[Brisketexan 105,155]

And.....the troll gets put on ignore....

[Fozzz 152]

With Trump in power, the dems have to at least feign resistance, making it harder for Trump and the Republicans to go full austerity in response to the crisis.  As we saw with Geithner's handling of the last crisis, with a dem in the office libtards will defend their president no matter how awful their response to the crisis is.

 

[Biff Tannen 45,691]

22 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

And.....the troll gets put on ignore....

Welcome to the club.

[Red Five 40,862]

23 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

with a dem in the office libtards will defend their president no matter how awful their response to the crisis is.

[Tuco 5,076]

1 hour ago, Pancho said:

I just don't understand why Dems allow for those on the right to constantly say "Radical Left" while not punching back and calling them the Radical Right."

Baffling. 

In a similar vein, I think it is too easy to get into the mindset that Democrats are looking to change things (being progressives) and the Republicans are looking to protect things (being conservatives.)  I think the Democrats do a shit job of showing how the Republicans are actively whittling away at things which have long been valued.  Take higher education: the debate is framed that the Democrats are pushing for "free" college, which the Republicans are resisting.  What's lost in that is how Republicans have systematically defunded public universities, to the point that it is no longer affordable without incurring massive debt.  They both are pushing for change: Democrats looking to make it more affordable and Republicans making it less affordable.  Either way it changes, and I think if you give voters the choice between more affordable or less affordable, they'd go with Democrats. 

 

[Fozzz 152]

2 minutes ago, Red Five said:

Quote

Still the White House held firm to its strategy. “The most important thing I can do right now to keep people in their homes is to make sure the economy is growing,” the president said in Albuquerque in September 2010. “That’s probably the thing that’s going to strengthen the housing market the most over the next couple of years.”

Two days later, an important deadline passed quietly. The $700 billion bailout fund Congress had created in 2008 expired. The administration could no longer use the money to finance new programs even if it wanted to. It had left more than $300 billion unspent.

Quote

But the decision ultimately was political. Mr. Obama and his advisers were convinced that even in the depths of an unyielding crisis, most Americans did not want their neighbors rescued at public expense. Several cited the response to the Arizona speech — including the televised diatribe by a CNBC personality, Rick Santelli, that helped give rise to the Tea Party — as proof that they were wise not to do more.

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/20/business/economy/slow-response-to-housing-crisis-now-weighs-on-obama.html

 

[Larry T. Spider 1,746]

4 hours ago, The Dog said:

I'm just pointing out that this is an outlier wrt the presidential candidates instead of it being a systemic problem as was being alleged in the tweet.

Wasn't calling this person a dipshit at all but rather calling out something I thought was misleading. These guys are DEFINITELY older than what we normally see in presidential elections.

However, I think the average age of the electorate would have been a better measure - saying the average age of all Americans isn't really relevant considering it includes people under 18 who won't be eligible to vote. In spite of my best efforts at the googles this morning this is the best thing I could find that shows a breakdown of this year's electorate. :

and here's the link to the related article with a bunch of other voter demographic crap if you want to go down that rabbit hole: https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/essay/an-early-look-at-the-2020-electorate/

I actually used this same graph in a political group text this week. I know many of us can get frustrated with the democratic party not pushing to the left, but this is what they are working with. Different charts show what these generations will look like in 2028 and it is vastly different. Trump is truly the last middle finger from many in a generation that was a political bully in the terms of size. The republican party will have to be entirely rebuilt in order to remain competitive in a world run by gen x, millennials, and gen z. 

This article is a long look at gen z. They even have a section about how gen z republicans differ from older republicans. Hint: they seem to understand equity issues better. 

https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/essay/on-the-cusp-of-adulthood-and-facing-an-uncertain-future-what-we-know-about-gen-z-so-far/

Generation Z represents the leading edge of the country’s changing racial and ethnic makeup. A bare majority (52%) are non-Hispanic white – significantly smaller than the share of Millennials who were non-Hispanic white in 2002 (61%). One-in-four Gen Zers are Hispanic, 14% are black, 6% are Asian and 5% are some other race or two or more races.

[gmr548 16,580]

I actually used this same graph in a political group text this week. I know many of us can get frustrated with the democratic party not pushing to the left, but this is what they are working with. Different charts show what these generations will look like in 2028 and it is vastly different. Trump is truly the last middle finger from many in a generation that was a political bully in the terms of size. The republican party will have to be entirely rebuilt in order to remain competitive in a world run by gen x, millennials, and gen z. 
This article is a long look at gen z. They even have a section about how gen z republicans differ from older republicans. Hint: they seem to understand equity issues better. 
https://www.pewsocialtrends.org/essay/on-the-cusp-of-adulthood-and-facing-an-uncertain-future-what-we-know-about-gen-z-so-far/
Generation Z represents the leading edge of the country’s changing racial and ethnic makeup. A bare majority (52%) are non-Hispanic white – significantly smaller than the share of Millennials who were non-Hispanic white in 2002 (61%). One-in-four Gen Zers are Hispanic, 14% are black, 6% are Asian and 5% are some other race or two or more races.

The Republican party is going to really struggle to be competitive in that world. If they can foster resentment in gen x and couple it with the fading boomer leviathan, that could work, but that's about the only shot and not a long term strategy.

The old trope is that people get more conservative as they age. That's not the case, people are generally most politically malleable when they come of age and dramatic changes are very rare. Obama sandwiched by Bush and Trump is not going to help the GOP at all with these age groups.

Also gen z makes millenials look like hard right fascists.

[BrickHorn 18,237]

I wonder what the rural-urban divide looks like when broken out by age group. It’s typically the case that old and rural both correlate to conservatism. But I have a sense that younger rural voters may be even further right than older rural voters. If that is true (not sure it is - it’s a hypothesis at this point), then the passing of the Boomers would only make the geographic fractures in this country even worse.

[gmr548 16,580]

I wonder what the rural-urban divide looks like when broken out by age group. It’s typically the case that old and rural both correlate to conservatism. But I have a sense that younger rural voters may be even further right than older rural voters. If that is true (not sure it is - it’s a hypothesis at this point), then the passing of the Boomers would only make the geographic fractures in this country even worse.

I dont know that rural young people are any more or less conservative than rural olds. It wouldn't be much of a political fracture because the urban/suburban population among those ages so vastly dwarfs the rural population it's not even a fair fight. Except in the Senate.

[Pancho 44,856]

1 hour ago, Tuco said:

In a similar vein, I think it is too easy to get into the mindset that Democrats are looking to change things (being progressives) and the Republicans are looking to protect things (being conservatives.)  I think the Democrats do a shit job of showing how the Republicans are actively whittling away at things which have long been valued.  Take higher education: the debate is framed that the Democrats are pushing for "free" college, which the Republicans are resisting.  What's lost in that is how Republicans have systematically defunded public universities, to the point that it is no longer affordable without incurring massive debt.  They both are pushing for change: Democrats looking to make it more affordable and Republicans making it less affordable.  Either way it changes, and I think if you give voters the choice between more affordable or less affordable, they'd go with Democrats. 

 

Yep. 

 

It’s funny when students ask me for speech topics and the convo gets to college affordability.  99% of the time, they cannot understand why college costs so much today.  When I finally explain why (which is what you stated above), students usually go “oh I didn’t even think about that.”  of course, the community college I teach at is in trump country of nawfwest Houston. 

[Larry T. Spider 1,746]

I think rural people will continue to be very conservative and that will give them a foothold in the senate. There are just too many rural states for democrats to dominate there. The electoral college for president and eventually the supreme court would be the big wins for democrats. With urban areas growing and rural populations shrinking, it will become harder and harder to gerrymander if there is at least one urban center in the state. 

The idea that people get more conservative as they age has been somewhat true (and somewhat not) with white people. Republicans have always been able to scare old white people that the minorities are going to take over and ruin America. Think about how our current olds grew up in segregated schools with few direct experiences with minorities. Thats just not going to work as well with gen x and millennials as they have had such different experiences in an America that is still somewhat segregated. 

[Voldemort86 2,259]

One thing most people can agree on is we need the silent generation to “exit stage left” from the electorate as fast as possible. Those people are extremely conservative and vote R like robots.

[JimmyJames 12,271]

7 hours ago, Mrs Whiggins said:

Here's the list from Ballotpedia:

Abby Johnson (the anti choice advocate)

Sen. Joni Ernst (Iowa)

Former U.N. Ambassador Nikki Haley

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (Calif.)

Patricia and Mark McCloskey (St. Louis Mansion Militia)

South Dakota Gov. Kristi Noem

Vice President Mike Pence

Andrew Pollack (School Security Dad)

Nick Sandmann

Sen. Tim Scott (S.C.) (Not Scott Baio)

President Donald Trump

First Lady Melania Trump

 

The sandman’s speech will be comedy gold. He will probably try to tell some lame jokes and completely bomb.

Am also interested in Melanie’s speech. Hopefully it’s the exact same speech as Michelle Obama just substituting the word trump for Biden. Or in the middle of her bullshit speech she breaks script and yells out, “Do not vote for this horrible maniac again! “ Yelling it Over and over until they finally drag her off the stage. 

[Mrs Whiggins 13,050]

5 minutes ago, JimmyJames said:

Am also interested in Melanie’s speech. Hopefully it’s the exact same speech as Michelle Obama just substituting the word trump for Biden. Or in the middle of her bullshit speech she breaks script and yells out, “Do not vote for this horrible maniac again! “ Yelling it Over and over until they finally drag her off the stage. 

I looked at the transcript of Michelle Obama's speech, the speech I listened to on that first night. I was going to annotate it with Melania's thoughts but as I began and her words once more sunk in, I just couldn't do it. It is just too good and if Melania Trump  copies that speech it's going to be an unforgivable insult to Americans that know the character and heart of the truth.

[Pancho 44,856]

 

[4th&Five 41,558]

Has Thom Brenneman been added as an RNC speaker yet?

[TexLonghorn 5,671]

[HenryJames 66,121]

 

[tantric superman 4,667]

18 hours ago, Pancho said:

I just don't understand why Dems allow for those on the right to constantly say "Radical Left" while not punching back and calling them the Radical Right."

Baffling. 

It's "I know what you are but what am I" bs, so if what you say is true, fine with me.

On a tangent:

I have to admit, though, as someone who has voted blue the last 20 years, I want a Green New Deal that consists of 100% environmental regulations and economic incentives and zero labor and employment regulations.  I'm against race based affirmative action and in favor of need based affirmative action.  I am on the whole suspicious of labor unions.  I'm in favor on an imaginary ethical and fiscally responsible Republican Party that pushes against progressive policies.  I'm convinced that allowing too big a forum to the farthest legit left side of the Dem Party will give Trump the win in 2020.

In short, while I agree that characterizing the whole party as Radical Left is stupid, I'm probably about as suspicious of the radical Left as one could be who is voting 100% blue.

[Mrs Whiggins 13,050]

Labor unions are imperfect that is for sure, but I haven't quite worked out how to work out the classic Grapes of Wrath struggle between the labor that is provided and the purchaser of that labor writ large with the national coast to coast corporate fist (okay, betrayed my blue collar roots with that one). It seems like such a con game though if white collar blokes don't see that too: you can't change jobs because insurance. You can't  easily move away from family for a career improvement because of finding trustworthy daycare or eldercare. And if you are down the pay scale, the struggle to find housing in that new community you moved to due to that was where the job is looms large. They are small things for a specific demographic but huge for everyone else.

I'm not sure I follow your zero labor and employment regs though. We've tried that in the past, or so I thought, and it failed miserably for most, fatally for some, and worked out wonderfully for the few bastards that capitalized with little regard for human life. *Apologies if you weren't throwing all regulations under the table but zero means to me none*

[Fudge Nuggets 19,206]

23 hours ago, Lobo said:

I didn't realize she was British. I guess Cameroon was a UK colony at one point.  And apparently she took the speaking spot of Senator Milt?  

A small portion of modern day Cameroon was under British control from World War I until 1960.  Cameroon's history though has much more French influence.

I kind of liked Cameroon overall the short time I was there.  They do not lack for fine babes with some of the best bodies you'll find on planet earth.

[SizzleChest 8,284]

[Guest Lobo]

We had some good times with the Demon Sperm Doctor at the Haile Selassie Cultural Pavilion!  

[Gatorubet 30,246]

It's "I know what you are but what am I" bs, so if what you say is true, fine with me.
On a tangent:
I have to admit, though, as someone who has voted blue the last 20 years

[NameAlreadyInUse 5,114]

Full on nihilism is the way that I like to kick off my message board reading for Friday's, so this particular troll fit the bill today!!

[Voldemort86 2,259]

I can’t imagine the RNC doing better than this.

[The Dog 44,062]

[StassneyHorn 6,614]

70 million for Biden during the Convention

[HenryJames 66,121]

Just now, StassneyHorn said:

70 million for Biden during the Convention

 

[Homercles 10,206]

31 minutes ago, HenryJames said:

 

Total failure -GRHorn

[lemonlime 5,503]

1 hour ago, StassneyHorn said:

70 million for Biden during the Convention

Didn't they also raise $64 million last week in the two days after Harris was announced as the running mate.  But over $134 Million in 2 weeks- no enthusiasm.  s/ GR Horn.

[burntorangebongos 10,747]

He'd listen to the scientists. 

 

[Pancho 44,856]

 

 

[Wulaw Horn 19,098]

Didn’t watch the speech but reaction seems to be that it was somewhere between decent and very good?  Which isn’t too surprising in the format these things have. Which just shows how profoundly stupid the Trump camps lowering expectations for Joe was over the last 6-9 months. 
I’m convinced that the only people who can hold a candle to team trumps idiocy in campaigning is the freak show in charge of Hillary’s campaign. 
It makes one yearn for a simpler time when  pro’s like Carville, Rove and Axelrod (or should we give credit to Obama himself) were grand strategists as opposed to the morons that brought us the dumbest race ever in 2016. 
Seriously though- Biden’s campaign team had an easy lift this season and they aren’t fucking it up- but the primary performance was so... underwhelming, that I’m not sure they should get credit for anything more than tallest midget in the room. But Trump man- he’s the anti-Midas touch on that team. I’d take any of the campaign staff from Veep over the Trump clowns. 

[ERhine 1,894]

Didn’t watch the speech but here’s four paragraphs analyzing about it. Possibly the most Wulaw post ever.

[totallynotabuttpirate 5,400]

The speech was fucking amazing. Timing, delivery, content, personality , literally everything was on point. Anyone saying otherwise is a Bernie-Warren fuccboi. 

I want to give a special fuck you shoutout to @bad_teammate. I thought Biden was a blithering dementia patient that was an embarrassment to us all? 

Edited August 22, 2020 by totallynotabuttpirate

[totallynotabuttpirate 5,400]

1 hour ago, ERhine said:

Didn’t watch the speech but here’s four paragraphs analyzing about it. Possibly the most Wulaw post ever.

I am thoroughly convinced that Wulaw practices bird law or something of the sort.  

[JimmyJames 12,271]

The speech was great. Therefore our resident trolls won’t like it and will therefore talk about something else. 

[JimmyJames 12,271]

Right about now they are gathering their thoughts and awaiting instructions