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

[jimmyjazz 45952]

34 minutes ago, Lobo said:

Trump fans are gonna have an awkward moment during the second debate, when the moderator asks "President Trump, you have claimed on several occasions that Vice President Biden here, and your predecessor-President Obama, repeatedly spied on your campaign in 2015 and 2016.  Would you now, for the record, state what evidence you have to support that claim.  And based on that evidence, what legal action you plan to take to against Mr. Biden here whether he is elected or not."  

Pussies usually have a harder time lying to people's faces when the lie is about that person in particular.  

You admire a spineless coward.  Your grandfathers would weep in shame if they could see you now.    

It's cute that you think Trump would even come close to answering the question.

[Biff Tannen 45685]

3 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

It's cute that you think Trump would even come close to answering the question.

They should still ask.  He'd give the same answer he's given before.  "You know.  You know what the evidence is."  He's a child.  Call him on his childishness.

[jimmyjazz 45952]

Just now, Biff Tannen said:

They should still ask.  He'd give the same answer he's given before.  "You know.  You know what the evidence is."  He's a child.  Call him on his childishness.

I agree, and especially in the context of a debate, because unlike a Rose Garden press conference, the debate is ultimately controlled by the moderator.  They can keep pushing.  He doesn't get to drive the flow of questioning, although he will interrupt, evade, etc. at will.

[Guest Lobo]

23 minutes ago, Francisco 2.0 said:

Not sure if that's directed at me or not, but I'm the wrong person if it is.

 

No, it was more of the "Usted" type of generalization.  I have no idea what your politics are in real life.  Most of us on here and probably lying when it comes to our personal politics.  The only I'm damn sure of in real life, even though I've never met him is that Hugo is a Democrat.  And I'm starting to think GrHorn supports Trump somewhat, but I could be wrong on that one.  

I don't think Trump will answer that question, but I do think it will be asked of him.  It would be grossly irresponsible of the moderator not to ask that question considering the person at whom those claims are always directed, Biden, will be standing a few feet away from Trump.  Trump constantly claims he spied on his campaign, that he's mentally unfit for office, and that he'll make America unsafe.  He says/tweets that about Biden, on all three topics, almost on a daily basis.  I realize no moderator would allow their debate to be turned into a 90-minute circus of just reading tweets they type about one another, but those three topics are huge drivers of Trump's campaign.  And they are all directed at the other guy on the stage.  

Biff Tannen is right though...Trump will merely pivot away from it by saying, "Oh, there's plenty of evidence.  I can't get into it right now out of respect for this forum, but the evidence is all there.  It's waiting in the wings, along with my tax returns and my plan to combat Covid-19, my health care plan.  It's all in the 'Two-Week Lockbox.'  

Trump has gotta be careful though, because the oldest and time-tested pivot in a presidential debate has always been some version of, "I'm not going to engage that claim, but I'd rather tell the American people about my vision/plan/program for the future of this nation and/or my vision/plan/program to combat issue x/y/z."  And even though we know they're full of shit when they do that, it works because we all forget what came before the 'but.'  But Trump will be in trouble, unlike in 2016, because he has no plan or vision for anything and we have a bunch of shit going on that could really use a fucking plan.  2016, he was just gonna restore American pride, end our overseas wars, and bring back coal.  It was vague, none of those issues were even in voter's Top 10 concerns, and he had no real record to defend.  2020 is wildly different from a debate perspective.  

Also, any moderator worth their salt (and most of them aren't)...is gonna ask him about one of those plans for health care or Covid-19 or police reform or Russia or veteran's issues or a host of others, and he'll say "our full plan for that will be available to everyone in about two weeks."  Then, two weeks later at the next debate, that new moderator, should open the whole debate with, "President Trump, you confidently indicated over two weeks ago that your health care overhaul plan would be available to the public.  With record high ratings, more eyeballs are on you now that ever before.  Would you tell the American people, right now on this stage, about your health care plan overhaul?"  

Edited September 14, 2020 by Lobo

[BradInATX 9208]

19 hours ago, Storm the Field said:

Latest FNC national poll is Biden +5 (51-46), with Biden up 6 in "battlegrounds." Previous was 49-42, so both candidates gained vote share. Almost no undecideds left.

FWIW, Fox's mid-September poll in 2016 was Trump +1 (46-45) which ended up being his exact popular vote total. Moreover, the mid-September polls in general in both 2012 and 2016 ended up nailing the final result. As of 9/13/16, RCP average was Clinton +2.3 vs. final result of +2.1. 9/13/12, RCP average was Obama +3.5 vs. final result of +3.9.

Let's say we end up with a final pop vote of 52/46.5/1.5. A ~5.5 point Biden margin would be right smack dab in the middle between Obama '08 and Obama '12 and almost certainly  (>95%) result in an EC victory. 

 

This is good info, thanks for sharing. So as the undecideds sort into one side or another, Trump has gained +4 and Biden +2. The undecideds breaking for Trump at 2:1. That falls in line with what a lot of us here expected, the voters trying to pretend that they are independent or undecided until the last minute, but were always going to vote for Trump. They just needed to pretend to be giving it deep consideration so that don't feel like a piece of shit for voting the way they're voting. 

If you allocate the last three percent the same way, you're looking at Biden 52, Trump 48. That margin is right on the razor's edge of what's needed for a Biden win. 

There is absolutely still reason to be concerned about the very, very real possibility of Trump threading the needle again. Especially if/when him and the corrupt cop Bill Barr do whatever they're scheming at the last minute.

[TXSG8R 3362]

9 hours ago, TexEx15 said:

An M4, the military equivalent to a civilian AR-15, does not have a fully auto (at least not usually) mode.  It’s semi-automatic or 3 round burst.  Also, probably the most practical use for an AR-15 other than target practice would be something like hunting hogs for the purpose of population control.  It’s an awful choice for home defense and for something like deer hunting you want a bolt action with a much larger scope.  You are correct they were designed to kill in war.  Period.  I agree regarding the gun violence issue.  I’m a strong 2nd amendment supporter but I am all for sensible gun control.  Hell you can’t go buy a claymore to plant in your home or an M203 grenade launcher so clearly there is precedent for regulating certain weapons of war, which does not lead to abolishing the 2nd amendment.  

Agreed, its a good varmint or range gun, there are much better alternatives for most other activities.  The fantasy that a well regulated militia could keep the government's army in check is laughable.  I don't think we are ever putting the genie back in the bottle wrt guns being available to the public, but as capabilities for the weapon go up, the level of scrutiny on the buyer should as well.  Bird gun, bolt action, or revolver?  Standard background check.  Semi-auto, magazine fed weapon?  Dig a little deeper, have a longer standoff period, require stronger weapon storage to be sold/proven with the weapon so kids cant access them and go shoot up a fucking school.  Anything that gets closer to the military capability (suppressed, automatic, high-capacity magazines, belt-fed, etc) has a serious background check, registration, storage requirements, etc.  Personal sales and gun shows should have the same requirements, close all the loopholes.  We make everyone that drives get a license, and anyone driving bigger vehicles get licenses with additional requirements.  This shouldn't be controversial, but muh 2A.    

I also think that parents need to carry more responsibility for weapon access to kids.  If your kid takes a weapon and shoots someone, you carry the same penalty as the kid.  

[Guest Lobo]

^

perfectly reasonable, so no chance of happening.  The nation with access to the most information of any nation on the planet has to have a debate about whether or not people purchasing a fucking belt-fed weapon should have to undergo a background check.  Let's think about that for a moment, America.  A belt-fed weapon has the same law enforcement scrutiny as a pistol.  I suppose if I wanted to get in touch with my inner Jesse Ventura and buy an M134 minigun, I could bitch and moan about all the pesky questions at the gun shop.  "Uh, 2nd Amendment brutha...you can't ask me what helicopter I will be mounting this to!"  

Edited September 14, 2020 by Lobo

[Gatorubet 30238]

 
This is good info, thanks for sharing. So as the undecideds sort into one side or another, Trump has gained +4 and Biden +2. The undecideds breaking for Trump at 2:1. That falls in line with what a lot of us here expected, the voters trying to pretend that they are independent or undecided until the last minute, but were always going to vote for Trump. They just needed to pretend to be giving it deep consideration so that don't feel like a piece of shit for voting the way they're voting. 
If you allocate the last three percent the same way, you're looking at Biden 52, Trump 48. That margin is right on the razor's edge of what's needed for a Biden win. 
There is absolutely still reason to be concerned about the very, very real possibility of Trump threading the needle again. Especially if/when him and the corrupt cop Bill Barr do whatever they're scheming at the last minute.

I think Trump is going to lose some old people votes. Not much. Maybe 5% due to mail and Retirement system worries. But Florida....maybe Biden squeek

[Tuco 5076]

9 hours ago, TexEx15 said:

An M4, the military equivalent to a civilian AR-15, does not have a fully auto (at least not usually) mode.  It’s semi-automatic or 3 round burst.  Also, probably the most practical use for an AR-15 other than target practice would be something like hunting hogs for the purpose of population control.  It’s an awful choice for home defense and for something like deer hunting you want a bolt action with a much larger scope.  You are correct they were designed to kill in war.  Period.  I agree regarding the gun violence issue.  I’m a strong 2nd amendment supporter but I am all for sensible gun control.  Hell you can’t go buy a claymore to plant in your home or an M203 grenade launcher so clearly there is precedent for regulating certain weapons of war, which does not lead to abolishing the 2nd amendment.  

The idea that Congressmen "defend the second amendment" is flawed from the start, and is such a shitty deflection.  Congressmen can't buttress the 2A from attacks, nor can they diminish it.  The 2A is already law, and the Supreme Court has interpreted its extent.  And that interpretation has allowed for reasonable gun control laws, including the limitations of what arms can be kept from the public.  In the 1930s, we decided it made no sense that fully automatic weapons should be available for the public.  Their sale was so strictly limited, that it is effectively a ban.  The second amendment still stands.  In the 90s, we decided that assault rifles could have their sale strictly limited.  While we can argue about the appropriateness and adequacy of the definition of assault weapons, that limitation was not found to be in violation of the 2A.  There is nothing a Congressman can do about that interpretation, or further interpretations on the subject. Since then, Congress has refused to work within the legislative space allowed by the 2A interpretation.  It has nothing to do with Constitutional rights, and everything to do with lobbying.  They could make society a safer place, without infringing on the 2A, but they have refused to do so.  And every year that goes by, technology improves and the weapons get better at what they were designed to do: allow a single person to kill a large number of his fellow citizens.  Is there anyone out there who would prefer to use a 1930s era "tommy gun" in a fight over a modern, legal, AR-15 with extended clip?  The current legal weapons are more lethal than what America decided to effectively outlaw 90 years ago.  Gun control is not a radical idea.  Refusing to deal with the issue is.  

 

Edited September 14, 2020 by Tuco

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

36 minutes ago, Lobo said:

Also, any moderator worth their salt (and most of them aren't)...is gonna ask him about one of those plans for health care or Covid-19 or police reform or Russia or veteran's issues or a host of others, and he'll say "our full plan for that will be available to everyone in about two weeks."  Then, two weeks later at the next debate, that new moderator, should open the whole debate with, "President Trump, you confidently indicated over two weeks ago that your health care overhaul plan would be available to the public.  With record high ratings, more eyeballs are on you now that ever before.  Would you tell the American people, right now on this stage, about your health care plan overhaul?"  

Not specific enough.

"Would you tell the American people, right now on this stage: what is your health care plan and how will you pay for it?"

 

[BLKNSTY 289]

The fantasy that a well regulated militia could keep the government's army in check is laughable. 

I think the opium and rice farmers in Afghanistan and Vietnam would like a word. Granted, I don’t think we stand a chance if the gov decides to go scorched earth on us but we’ve got a solid mutually assured destruction thing going on right now.

[Mrs Whiggins 13050]

Also, have we discussed that Kid Rock and Don Jr (plus his gal, Kimberly) are having a get together in Michigan?

They're appearing at a Boat Club tonight in Macomb County. Bumpers Landing Boat Club. If it is outside, that will help attendees so they don't have to take six steps back from Kimberly to socially distance from her yelling at them.

 

[jimmyjazz 45952]

1 minute ago, BLKNSTY said:

I think the opium and rice farmers in Afghanistan and Vietnam would like a word. Granted, I don’t think we stand a chance if the gov decides to go scorched earth on us but we’ve got a solid mutually assured destruction thing going on right now.

 

This is true.  One of my best buddies is a Major in the Air Force, and has done combat duty in Falujah.  He is adamant that it is far more difficult to respond to guerilla tactics than one might think.

[The Dog 44051]

WHY IS HILLARY INVOLVED IN ANY WAY IN THIS CAMPAIGN???? 

She needs to be as far away as possible. 

[MidTexHorn 822]

A little positive anecdote this morning for ya. My co-worker and I are some of the few non-Trumpists that we know of in Midland and accordingly aren't really able to wear our allegiances on our sleeves for business reasons. She was out with friends this weekend, all white young oil professional types. In a conversation which she did not prompt, she said every one of them admitted to having voted for Trump in the last election and they all said they were either sitting out this election or voting for Biden. She was quite pleasantly surprised by the conversation, especially since one does not just casually speak against Trump in this industry or this part of the state. I'm sure at the end of the day, some will likely vote Trump, but just hearing those sentiments expressed was a positive step.

[Brisketexan 105139]

24 minutes ago, jimmyjazz said:

This is true.  One of my best buddies is a Major in the Air Force, and has done combat duty in Falujah.  He is adamant that it is far more difficult to respond to guerilla tactics than one might think.

And it's also exhibit eleventy billion in the cognitive dissonance of Trumpers.  See, they think that THEY are the well-regulated militia.  And they're all gonna put on all their tactical toy solider gear, and subjugate all of us troublemakers who won't bend the knee to their orange godking, easy-peasy.  What those ignorant fucks don't realize is that a shitload of the folks who think that Trump is an existential threat to a functioning Republic ALSO own guns.

Seriously, on Saturday, three of us watched the football game together.  We all think Trump isn't just shitty, but is incredibly dangerous, and he has inspired millions of his supporters to be dangerous.  We aren't simpering libtard soy-boys -- every one of us owns multiple firearms, and has been shooting since shortly after we could walk.  If the Trumpkin tacticool LARPers ever decide to go full "well-regulated militia" and start taking action against people.....THEY will face a guerilla insurgency.

And insurgencies are hard to stop because they AREN'T a "well-regulated militia."  No fucking tacticool LARPer gear.  Just regular looking folks, living their lives.  Which one of those people walking down the street is the one who set up an ambush of your Stasi unit terrorizing the neighborhood?  Good luck figuring it out, LARPers.  Not that those pantywaists wouldn't shit themselves and freeze up at the first sound of incoming gunfire anyway.

Naah, the Trump LARPers will do what they've always done -- take the coward's way out.  They're going to shoot up more Wal-Marts full of brown people, more synagogues, maybe a Biden campaign event or office, something like that.  They're just plain old piss-ant terrorists who have the illusion of bravery because they are engaged in mutual cock-stroking with the administration.  That's all they are.  Piss-ant cowardly garbage.

[TwiceHorn 31470]

15 hours ago, Horn Dog said:

Or was it the Japs?  Its all the same shit!!

Laotians, imo.

[TXSG8R 3362]

39 minutes ago, BLKNSTY said:

 

I think the opium and rice farmers in Afghanistan and Vietnam would like a word. Granted, I don’t think we stand a chance if the gov decides to go scorched earth on us but we’ve got a solid mutually assured destruction thing going on right now.

 

Yes, the people that are largely self sufficient and able to live off the earth in natural camo versus the rubes that couldn't go 2 months without a fucking haircut are comparable.  Can some guys with guns harass the government?  Sure.  Can it prevent the government forces from occupying a building, town, city, etc?  Not a chance in hell.  We prevent government tyranny more by having a volunteer army than by guys being able to walk into a sandwich shop in his call of duty cosplay.  The government is more scared of organized labor than any militia, because that is the more immediate threat.  

Its also very funny the people that are so pro-2A back legislation that will give the government back doors into encryption, and allow the use of stuff like Stingrays.  Those are much quicker paths to tyranny than having to register for a gun will ever be.  Blue lives matter more I guess.  

[BrickHorn 18234]

4 minutes ago, TXSG8R said:

Its also very funny the people that are so pro-2A back legislation that will give the government back doors into encryption, and allow the use of stuff like Stingrays.  Those are much quicker paths to tyranny than having to register for a gun will ever be.  Blue lives matter more I guess. 

It’s a myth that Second Amendment advocates are motivated by some libertarian desire to be left alone by the state. That’s not who they are. Gun nuts want guns because they see guns as a means to exert authority should society break down. They’re civilian fascists terrified of change. They’re that ugly lawyer couple from St Louis, waving guns around at the first inkling of unrest in their gate community. They’re the New Orleans vigilantes after Katrina, driving around in trucks and shooting innocent black men under the guise of “keeping order.”

Second Amendment fetishists don’t wish to prevent tyranny. They’re desperate to maintain it.

[Brisketexan 105139]

20 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

It’s a myth that Second Amendment advocates are motivated by some libertarian desire to be left alone by the state. That’s not who they are. Gun nuts want guns because they see guns as a means to exert authority should society break down. They’re civilian fascists terrified of change. They’re that ugly lawyer couple from St Louis, waving guns around at the first inkling of unrest in their gate community. They’re the New Orleans vigilantes after Katrina, driving around in trucks and shooting innocent black men under the guise of “keeping order.”

Second Amendment fetishists don’t wish to prevent tyranny. They’re desperate to maintain it.

Fucking bingo.

[Grade of D as in David 13253]

2 hours ago, TXSG8R said:

Agreed, its a good varmint or range gun, there are much better alternatives for most other activities.  The fantasy that a well regulated militia could keep the government's army in check is laughable.  I don't think we are ever putting the genie back in the bottle wrt guns being available to the public, but as capabilities for the weapon go up, the level of scrutiny on the buyer should as well.  Bird gun, bolt action, or revolver?  Standard background check.  Semi-auto, magazine fed weapon?  Dig a little deeper, have a longer standoff period, require stronger weapon storage to be sold/proven with the weapon so kids cant access them and go shoot up a fucking school.  Anything that gets closer to the military capability (suppressed, automatic, high-capacity magazines, belt-fed, etc) has a serious background check, registration, storage requirements, etc.  Personal sales and gun shows should have the same requirements, close all the loopholes.  We make everyone that drives get a license, and anyone driving bigger vehicles get licenses with additional requirements.  This shouldn't be controversial, but muh 2A.    

I also think that parents need to carry more responsibility for weapon access to kids.  If your kid takes a weapon and shoots someone, you carry the same penalty as the kid.  

All of this.

I would also add mandatory liability insurance for each weapon owned. If I have to carry a policy on my car, I should damn well have to carry a policy on my firearms.

[Sbbruin 21853]

46 minutes ago, BrickHorn said:

It’s a myth that Second Amendment advocates are motivated by some libertarian desire to be left alone by the state. That’s not who they are. Gun nuts want guns because they see guns as a means to exert authority should society break down. They’re civilian fascists terrified of change. They’re that ugly lawyer couple from St Louis, waving guns around at the first inkling of unrest in their gate community. They’re the New Orleans vigilantes after Katrina, driving around in trucks and shooting innocent black men under the guise of “keeping order.”

Second Amendment fetishists don’t wish to prevent tyranny. They’re desperate to maintain it.

[Huckleberry 32861]

4 hours ago, Bateshorn said:

This is well put. I have a friend whose gone from hard core 2nd amendment advocate to pro sensible gun control, and it was largely based on the Supreme Court decision striking down DC gun laws and separating the right to keep and bear from the well regulated militia clause.  His argument is basically the court can’t differentiate “arms” under that theory.  He should have the right to own a howitzer or fully functional tank.

That's just understanding English and is the correct position. Which is why the Second Amendment is archaic and needs to be updated. 

[freyguy 4272]

The states have every right to regulate and control the commerce of gun purchases.  Unfortunately they've been weak to do so.  But really, we all have.

[Fozzz 152]

lol what in God's name is a civilian fascist?  That term has lost all of its original content.  

[cabowabo 4484]

Biden blaming the fires and hurricanes on Trump. Lol.

[Hugo Stiglitz 23367]

Important video on how the Trump campaign worked with social media companies in 2016.  No doubt they’re doing it again in some form or another.  All of this is still legal.

 

[4th&Five 41551]

link?

[Pancho 44803]

14 minutes ago, cabowabo said:

Biden blaming the fires and hurricanes on Trump. Lol.

No he didn't.  Either you're not paying attention, or you have trouble with comprehension.  

[jimmyjazz 45952]

17 minutes ago, cabowabo said:

Biden blaming the fires and hurricanes on Trump. Lol.

Yeah, that sounds unlikely.  Got a link?

[cabowabo 4484]

No he didn't.  Either you're not paying attention, or you have trouble with comprehension.  

He called him a climate arsonist for fuck's sake.

[4th&Five 41551]

 

[4th&Five 41551]

Just now, cabowabo said:

Just now, Pancho said:

No he didn't.  Either you're not paying attention, or you have trouble with comprehension.  

He called him a climate arsonist for fuck's sake.

 

[JimmyJames 12271]

10 minutes ago, cabowabo said:

15 minutes ago, Pancho said:

No he didn't.  Either you're not paying attention, or you have trouble with comprehension.  

He called him a climate arsonist for fuck's sake.

Who are you voting for? 

[jimmyjazz 45952]

10 minutes ago, cabowabo said:

15 minutes ago, Pancho said:

No he didn't.  Either you're not paying attention, or you have trouble with comprehension.  

He called him a climate arsonist for fuck's sake.

And you can't even listen to the words that came out of his mouth, which included ". . . may not have CAUSED these fires, and record floods, and hurricanes . . . .".

I mean, are you brain damaged?

[cabowabo 4484]

Who are you voting for? 

Kanye.

[Foosters 17856]

22 minutes ago, cabowabo said:

27 minutes ago, Pancho said:

No he didn't.  Either you're not paying attention, or you have trouble with comprehension.  

He called him a climate arsonist for fuck's sake.

Cool. Your boy is calling for political opponents to be jailed. 

[Biff Tannen 45685]

Don't engage the troll.

[DefinitelyNotHollywoodColt 12301]

i'm sure it's been mentioned many times in this thread, but man...i somehow ended up on a text list for the GOP (although the name they are pleading in the texts isn't mine) and also get Dem texts. the difference in tone and message is startling. the GOP stuff is so angry and fear-inducing (you STILL haven't donated to help me? Are you saying you are ok with a lawless America under Sleepy Joe?!?) and of course fraudulent ('we JUST activated 5X matching!!!' bullshit you did). meanwhile the dems are reminders on ballots, linking to order signs, links to 'learn all about our great candidates'. 

i've received a total of 2 unsolicited texts from dems. i get 6-7/day from the GOP. 

 

[SizzleChest 8284]

1 hour ago, cabowabo said:

1 hour ago, Pancho said:

No he didn't.  Either you're not paying attention, or you have trouble with comprehension.  

He called him a climate arsonist for fuck's sake.

 

1 hour ago, 4th&Five said:

 

[tantric superman 4667]

I like the climate but Lunch Pail J needs to be in a photo op with cops every fucking day until this Trump craze blows over.

[Fozzz 152]

It seems like California's failure to implement a working controlled burn program is more of a proximate cause of the current fires in that state than climate change, but this doesn't grab the same headlines.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-019-0451-7

 

[4th&Five 41551]

 

[Aqua Buddha 14596]

5 hours ago, BrickHorn said:

It’s a myth that Second Amendment advocates are motivated by some libertarian desire to be left alone by the state. That’s not who they are. Gun nuts want guns because they see guns as a means to exert authority should society break down. They’re civilian fascists terrified of change. They’re that ugly lawyer couple from St Louis, waving guns around at the first inkling of unrest in their gate community. They’re the New Orleans vigilantes after Katrina, driving around in trucks and shooting innocent black men under the guise of “keeping order.”

Second Amendment fetishists don’t wish to prevent tyranny. They’re desperate to maintain it.

[Foosters 17856]

37 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

It seems like California's failure to implement a working controlled burn program is more of a proximate cause of the current fires in that state than climate change, but this doesn't grab the same headlines.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41893-019-0451-7

 

Allmost 60% of CA forests are under federal control.

Also, fuck you.

[jimmyjazz 45952]

43 minutes ago, Fozzz said:

It seems like California's failure to implement a working controlled burn program is more of a proximate cause of the current fires in that state than climate change, but this doesn't grab the same headlines.

Any chance you missed the part that most of that land is federal?

[Guest Lobo]

I know road atlases aren't popular anymore, but somebody get Fozzz one and show him all those green shaded areas that dominate much of the state.  Those are National Parks, National Forests, National Recreation Areas, National Monuments, National Preservers, National Lakeshores, National Seashores, National Historic Sites, etc.  We call those vast areas of land "National"...because you know...the Federal Government manages them.  

I would think the giant fucking "U.S. Forest Service" Flag behind Trump would have been your first clue, but I guess since Trump wasn't fellating it before the press conference, you probably didn't notice it.  Does your junior high geography teacher know you're this fucking stupid?  

Edited September 14, 2020 by Lobo

[Tuco 5076]

44 minutes ago, 4th&Five said:

 

Who wants to bet that in the next 48 hours Rasmussen "corrects" their poll.  There is a pattern: Rasmussen releases a wild point poll, Trump tweets about it, and within two days they correct it to be less rosy for Trump.  

[Storm the Field 5294]

As we enter the final days of this tumultuous Summer, this race...hasn't really moved much, if any, the past 3 months. 

6/14/20: Biden national lead of 8.4 (RCP), 75% chance to win according to 538 (pop vote projection of 53.1-45.6), and Biden/Trump shares on PredictIt were $0.58/$0.44. 

9/14/20: Biden national lead of 7.4 (RCP), 76% on 538 (52.8-45.9), $0.60/$0.45.

Biden for a while jumped out to landslide territory, but then Trump showed some signs of life towards the end of August. Neither of those really stuck around. Worth noting that Biden's 76% chance on 538 is up from his low mark of 67% just 2 weeks ago.  Trump was far enough behind that the models really needed to see a larger and more sustained polling bounce following the conventions, and he came up well short. 

[The Dog 44051]

Nah it's just the approval poll that pretty much everyone thinks is trash (referring to the Rasmussen approval tracking poll that Trump is farting about). 

Edited September 14, 2020 by The Dog